Two invasion suspects sentenced

Wednesday, March 10, 2010
Joshua Orman

* Proposed plea agreement for third suspect in case rejected

Suspects involved in a January 2009 home invasion/burglary at a rural northwestern Clay County home appeared in court this week concerning plea agreements.

Cousins Joshua L. Orman, 23, and James Levi Orman, 19, along with Christopher Charles Craft, 19, Brazil, were arrested by local law enforcement officers Jan. 15-16, 2009, for their alleged involvement in the violent incident that occurred at 8843 N. County Road 500 West.

The three men allegedly assaulted and held a young couple and their small child at gunpoint while stealing numerous electronic items from their home during the early morning hours of Jan 14.

The Clay County Prosecutor's Office formally charged each of the suspects with six criminal allegations, including:

* Class A felony robbery resulting in serious bodily injury,

* Class A felony conspiracy to commit robbery resulting in serious bodily injury,

* Class A felony burglary resulting in bodily injury,

* Class B felony aggravated battery,

* Class D felony theft, and

* Class D felony residential entry.

The prosecutor's office also confirmed Craft was on probation for a conviction/guilty plea in a separate case in Clay Superior Court at the time of the incident.

All three suspects, with help from their respective attorneys, have entered into previous negotiated plea agreements with the prosecutor's office.

Appearing before Clay Circuit Court Judge Joseph Trout in separate court proceedings Monday, the Ormans pled guilty to two class B felony charges, including burglary and aggravated battery, with the other charges to be dismissed.

Although both plea agreements were found to be factual and accepted, the sentencing hearings were adjourned until Tuesday. At that time, the prosecution and the defense attorneys were able to present evidence and testimony concerning mitigating and aggravating circumstances specific to the cases. This allows the judge to determine the appropriate amount of imprisonment.

The State of Indiana provides a "minimum to maximum range" in sentencing recommendations to help judges determine the amount of time an offender could potentially serve. In both cases, a person convicted of a class B felony could be sentenced to incarceration for 6-20 years.

The judge then has the right to determine if the amount of jail time served will run consecutive (each sentence to run after another without interruption) or concurrent (all sentences served simultaneously or side by side).

Geoffrey Creason, Joshua Orman's attorney, presented testimony by two family members and Joshua in an attempt to show his client maintained employment, had previously served in the military, was supported by his family and incarceration would create a hardship on his family and a dependent child.

Joshua also testified his involvement was not as much as others charged in the matter.

Creason requested the court consider a sentencing recommendation of 10 years.

The prosecution presented testimony by Indiana State Police Detective Sam Stearley.

Stearley testified to case specifics and Joshua's level of involvement. The officer believed Joshua was the "ringmaster" of the plan to "invade a home" and take property from residents who were believed to be "drug dealers."

Making a victim impact statement, the female victim testified about the emotional/physical trauma of the violent incident for herself, her spouse and child. In her opinion, she believed incarceration for a long period of time was not only appropriate, but would also prevent another crime from happening to another person.

The probation officer who prepared the pre-sentence investigation report also testified.

The prosecution requested the maximum of 20 years.

In a detailed three-and-a-half page sentencing order, Trout considered all of the circumstances presented in testimony during Joshua Orman's case, Probable Cause Affidavit and Pre-Sentencing Report and based his decision on the following:

* Being far older and more mature than the others involved in the incident, Joshua used bad judgment when he initiated the plan, drove his personal vehicle with co-defendants to the crime scene and initiated contact with the victims,

* Once it was determined the occupants were not a part of the original plan, there was no hesitation to continue,

* There was anticipation of residents being home because masks and a weapon were brought along during the burglary, and

* Joshua has allegedly shown no remorse for his disregard for human life and safety or offered to cooperate with law enforcement, which could be considered as evidence of bad character.

"Given the totality of the events," Trout sentenced Joshua Orman to 20 years imprisonment to be fully executed for both charges, which will run concurrent. Good time credit will be allowed, if earned while incarcerated at the Indiana Department of Correction (IDOC), with further credit allowed for 419 days previously served.

He was also ordered to pay restitution as part of his Adult Probation upon release.

Trout notified Joshua in open court of his rights to appeal, which are normally handled by the State Public Defender's Office. When the court was notified Joshua was intending to appeal, Creason was appointed to continue his representation until the Notice of Appeal or Motion to Correct Errors is filed.

James Orman

James Levi Orman, along with attorney Charles Hear, also appeared on Tuesday before Trout, but opted to not present evidence/testimony his behalf.

The prosecution did not present any evidence/testimony either, and requested the court consider the maximum sentence of 20 years.

Using the Probable Cause Affidavit and Pre-Sentencing Report, Trout based his sentence on the following:

* James extensive criminal record dating back to minor brushes with the law in Juvenile Court and several failed attempts to successfully complete probation as relevant to his character and inability to conform his conduct to laws of society,

* The extent of harm inflicted on the young victims -- even after it was determined they were not the intended target,

* Likelihood to re-offend and the fact that probation is not an effective tool in rehabilitation, and

* The fact the court found "no real evidence of a real mitigating factor."

Trout sentenced James Orman to 20-year imprisonment at the IDOC on both charges, which will run concurrent. He allowed James credit for 419 days previously served and ordered the defendant to pay restitution as part of the terms of Adult Probation upon release.

Trout also notified James of his rights to appeal. Unclear of James' decision as to whether or not he will appeal, Trout appointed Hear to continue representation until the proper paperwork is filed or not.

After their respective court proceedings, both defendants were remanded back into the custody of the Clay County Sheriff's Department pending processing by IDOC.

Christopher Craft

On Wednesday, Craft, along with his attorney Jason Brown, appeared before Clay Superior Court Judge J. Blaine Akers for a sentencing hearing on his negotiated plea agreement. Craft agreed to plead guilty to class B felony aggravated battery on Feb. 24.

After no evidence or testimony was presented in the matter by the prosecution and the defense, they both requested the court accept the terms of the negotiated plea agreement.

Citing the previous convictions and prison sentences issued in the Orman cases, Akers rejected the plea agreement due to the violent nature of the crime, the emotional and physical impact on the victims, Craft's own statements during the investigation and in the court proceedings and past criminal record.

A jury trial was tentatively scheduled for June 28.

According to Indiana Code, statements made by a defendant at a hearing to establish factual basis for guilt as part of a plea agreement that is rejected are not admissible in future court proceedings.

In simpler terms, prior statements set forth in plea hearings cannot be used against a defendant if the plea agreement is denied for whatever reason by a judge. However, evidentiary/admission statements given to police officers during the course of an ongoing investigation can be admissible in a jury trial.

Craft was returned to the custody of the CCSD for transport to the Vigo County Jail.

The Ormans and Craft also face charges of class A felony burglary resulting in bodily injury and class B felony robbery resulting in bodily injury from a second home invasion that also occurred on Jan. 14, 2009, in Vigo County. All three cases are being processed through Vigo County Circuit/Superior Court Division 3 and Judge David R. Bolk.


Initially Christopher Craft's defense attorney Jason Brown was incorrectly identified.

View 13 comments
Note: The nature of the Internet makes it impractical for our staff to review every comment. Please note that those who post comments on this website may do so using a screen name, which may or may not reflect a website user's actual name. Readers should be careful not to assign comments to real people who may have names similar to screen names. Refrain from obscenity in your comments, and to keep discussions civil, don't say anything in a way your grandmother would be ashamed to read.
  • Well, it's about time appropriate sentences were handed out. I hope it's a while before we see these guys on the streets again.

    -- Posted by Dagnabbit on Thu, Mar 11, 2010, at 7:42 AM
  • I hope through all this sentencing they remember that young couple and the pain and misery they went through. Retribution. Does the punishment meet the crime? I hope they get what's coming to them in sentencing. I'm sure they will.

    -- Posted by Criminology08 on Thu, Mar 11, 2010, at 7:48 AM
  • I have absolutely no doubt that these men would continue to reoffend in the future. It's a wonder this young couple and their child wasn't killed. The next family probably won't be as lucky now that these men have learned the important role of witnesses. Hopefully, the jury will find Chris Craft guilty as well and the judge will sentence him to twenty years too. It's just a shame they have the opportunity to get time off for good behavior.

    Let's not forget about the woman that was involved. Miranda "something." What's to become of her Mr. Prosecutor?

    -- Posted by My opinion counts on Thu, Mar 11, 2010, at 9:11 AM
  • bye bye boys

    -- Posted by therhino on Thu, Mar 11, 2010, at 9:33 AM
  • Appears as though the prosecutor is going to have to earn his salary and actually go to trial on one of them.

    -- Posted by I. M. Lee Thall, Esq. on Thu, Mar 11, 2010, at 2:08 PM
  • Right were they belong! These young men have had every chance in the world and need to be incarcerated!

    -- Posted by Mrs. Positive on Thu, Mar 11, 2010, at 2:43 PM
  • Bye, boys. Don't hurry back.

    -- Posted by th1953 on Thu, Mar 11, 2010, at 2:54 PM
  • The Prosecutor will use taxpayer money to hire a "hired gun" to prosecute it for him. Everyone knows he either plea bargains or turns it over to a "hired gun" at taxpayer expense.

    -- Posted by Mrs. Positive on Thu, Mar 11, 2010, at 3:58 PM
  • Mrs. Positive, remember that at election time. :)

    -- Posted by I. M. Lee Thall, Esq. on Thu, Mar 11, 2010, at 4:14 PM
  • WOOHOO!!!! Way To Be, Judge Akers!!! Never afraid to say something's not right!! Not letting any office take the easy road!! We need more just like you!!

    -- Posted by nascarfans on Thu, Mar 11, 2010, at 4:52 PM
  • Good call Judge Akers! We definately need more judges like you who see the situation for what it really is.

    Chris Craft has been a menace to society for a long time now and he needs us, the people who are on the other end of his malicious acts, to determine his fate. What goes around...

    -- Posted by brazil4now on Fri, Mar 12, 2010, at 9:58 AM
  • As one familiar with the procedings in a State's Attorney's Office I have read with interest several post over the past months:

    To those who feel the need to constantly criticize the work of the Clay County Prosecutor and his office, please do a little research before unilaterally throwing about potentially libelous comments. It appears that Mr. Reberger may be more knowledgeable (thankfully) in the law arena than...

    Mrs. Positive- a trial deputy is not paid for at taxpayer expense; rather, by fees and deferral funds collected by traffic violators - your tax money is not being spent on a hired gun( which most counties in Indiana utilize) unless you are a speeder...

    GOPsweep2010 - check your choice of words - a "litigant" as in "3rd rate litigant" - is a party in a legal dispute, such as a plaintiff or defendant, not one who defends or prosecutes said parties...

    Cubbiefan - the death of Ms. Hite was indeed a tragedy; however, some research uncovered that the young man responsible for that accident has been charged. In many cases as these, the families of the victims are involved in the charging decisions. I would be suprised if that were not the situation in this instance...

    Mr. Thall- though I have appreciated your points of view in several of your posts, education especially, it appears that you have little idea of what it takes for our legal system to run smoothly and not grind to a halt. Though we would all like to see criminals tried and sentenced before a jury of their peers as is depicted on Law and Order or other television shows, the sheer volume of cases facing our courts makes this impossible. Are you aware of how many cases go before the State and/or Court in your county? Would you have your county facing a 3 year backlog in sentencing in order to have an expensive trial to report in the newspaper...

    Babydog- bad blood/feelings?

    Before casting stones at prosecutors in any county for pleading cases, I would again encourage you to check your facts and research a few topics: find out how much your county allocates for jury trials and ask if you want your taxes raised in order to have more of them; find out how many cases are in the court each day and ask if you want those cases delayed so you can have a trial; review the plead to tried case percentages in your surrounding counties as well as the severity of said pleas issued in your county as compared to those offered for the same offenses in other counties - I believe the percentage of plead cases will be remarkably similar and that your county's pleas may actually be harsher than some of your neighbors.

    The law does not always seem fair or make sense to those not directly involved in its enforcement, but it is what it is - we can only do with it the best that we can - prosecutors, judges, defense attnys. We would love to put every "bad guy" away for a long time, we do the best we can within the confines of the situations we are given. I can verify from experience that all counties have similar frustrations, not just yours.

    -- Posted by lawprof2 on Fri, Mar 19, 2010, at 2:49 AM
  • ok yeh they did do bad things but most of u no these young men. i do personaly, and each one is very nice.. they are great young men everyone messes up once or twice or in there case alot.. i personaly do not hate them at all.. people need to forgive them.. they are doing the time they deserve.. so sittin on here talkin bad about these young men isnt gonna change wat they did or have done.. all ur doin is hurtin there families.. and they are not the ones who have done this.. they are serving 20 years for brazil and th dont u think that is enough.. u sit here and say there killers but honestly they are not.. none of us no y they did this or anything and i do feel bad for the lives they have hurt and i hope that one day they forgive these men... but u gotta realize they are doin there time..

    -- Posted by jaj31208 on Thu, Apr 22, 2010, at 1:06 PM
Respond to this story

Posting a comment requires free registration: