Dwayne A. Springfield v. State of Indiana , 124 N.E.3d 610 ( 2019 )


Menu:
  •                                                              FILED
    Jun 10 2019, 1:40 pm
    CLERK
    Indiana Supreme Court
    Court of Appeals
    and Tax Court
    IN THE
    Indiana Supreme Court
    Supreme Court Case No. 19S-CR-348
    Dwayne A. Springfield,
    Appellant,
    –v–
    State of Indiana,
    Appellee.
    Decided: June 10, 2019
    Appeal from the Marion Superior Court, No. 49G21-1612-F2-47464
    The Honorable Alicia Gooden, Judge
    On Petition to Transfer from the Indiana Court of Appeals,
    No. 18A-CR-1317
    Per Curiam Opinion
    All Justices concur.
    Per curiam.
    Following a traffic stop that ended in a police chase, Dwayne
    Springfield was charged with the following offenses, as relevant to this
    appeal:
    •    Count II: Possession of Cocaine under Indiana Code section 35-
    48-4-6(a), enhanced to a Level 4 felony under Indiana Code
    section 35-48-4-6(c)(2);
    •    Count IV: Possession of a Narcotic Drug under Indiana Code
    section 35-48-4-6(a), enhanced to a Level 5 felony under Indiana
    Code section 35-48-4-6(b)(2); and
    •    Count V: Unlawful Possession of a Firearm by a Serious Violent
    Felon, a Level 4 felony under Indiana Code section 35-47-4-5(c).
    The State later added another count to charge Springfield with being a
    habitual offender under Indiana Code section 35-50-2-8.
    A trifurcated trial was held in April 2018. The first phase of the trial
    involved Counts II and IV, and the jury found Springfield guilty of both.
    During the second phase, the jury determined that Springfield was guilty
    of Count V, the unlawful possession of a firearm by a serious violent
    felon. During the third phase, a bench trial, Springfield was adjudicated a
    habitual offender.
    At the sentencing hearing, the trial court sentenced Springfield to 10
    years for Count II, enhanced by 20 years for being a habitual offender; six
    years for Count IV; and 12 years for Count V. These sentences were
    ordered to be served concurrently, for an aggregate sentence of 30 years in
    the Indiana Department of Correction.
    Springfield appealed, arguing that his conviction for Count V and the
    enhancements applied to Counts II and IV violated Indiana double
    jeopardy principles because they were based on the same evidence—his
    possession of a single firearm. This Court has held that “two or more
    offenses are the ‘same offense’ in violation of Article I, Section 14 of the
    Indiana Constitution, if, with respect to either the statutory elements of the
    challenged crimes or the actual evidence used to convict, the essential
    elements of one challenged offense also establish the essential elements of
    Indiana Supreme Court | Case No. 19S-CR-348 | June 10, 2019           Page 2 of 4
    another challenged offense.” Richardson v. State, 
    717 N.E.2d 32
    , 49 (Ind.
    1999) (emphases in original).
    Citing Richardson, the Court of Appeals affirmed Springfield’s
    convictions and sentences for Counts II and IV but reversed the conviction
    and sentence for Count V, the unlawful possession of a firearm by a
    serious violent felon. It remanded the matter to the trial court with
    instructions to vacate the Count V conviction and sentence Springfield
    accordingly. Springfield v. State, 
    116 N.E.3d 1160
     (Ind. Ct. App. 2018), reh’g
    denied.
    We grant transfer solely to eliminate the residual double jeopardy
    violation—Springfield’s two drug-related convictions, both of which were
    enhanced based on the same evidence of his possession of a single firearm.
    Although the use of the same weapon during the commission of two or
    more distinct offenses may be used to enhance the level of each offense
    without offending double jeopardy protections, enhancing the level of two
    separate offenses for the continuous possession of a firearm would violate
    these principles. Miller v. State, 
    790 N.E.2d 437
    , 439 (Ind. 2003) (Sullivan, J.,
    concurring). The appropriate remedy to address such violations is to
    reduce one of the offending convictions to a lesser included offense, if
    doing so will eliminate the violation. Richardson, 717 N.E.2d at 54.
    Therefore, we remand this matter to the trial court for the entry of
    judgment on the jury verdicts of guilt for
    •    Count II: Possession of Cocaine as a Level 4 felony under
    Indiana Code section 35-48-4-6(c)(2); and
    •    Count IV: Possession of a Narcotic Drug as a Level 6 felony
    under Indiana Code section 35-48-4-6(a);
    and for a determination of the appropriate sentence for each conviction.
    We summarily affirm the opinion of the Court of Appeals in all other
    respects. See App. R. 58(A)(2).
    All Justices concur.
    Indiana Supreme Court | Case No. 19S-CR-348 | June 10, 2019             Page 3 of 4
    ATTORNEY FOR APPELLANT
    Valerie K. Boots
    Indianapolis, Indiana
    ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE
    Curtis T. Hill, Jr.
    Attorney General of Indiana
    Angela N. Sanchez
    Deputy Attorney General
    Indianapolis, Indiana
    Indiana Supreme Court | Case No. 19S-CR-348 | June 10, 2019   Page 4 of 4
    

Document Info

Docket Number: Supreme Court Case 19S-CR-348

Citation Numbers: 124 N.E.3d 610

Judges: Per Curiam

Filed Date: 6/10/2019

Precedential Status: Precedential

Modified Date: 10/19/2024