Allen Riley v. State of Indiana (mem. dec.) ( 2015 )

MEMORANDUM DECISION
Pursuant to Ind. Appellate Rule 65(D),
Nov 30 2015, 7:28 am
this Memorandum Decision shall not be
regarded as precedent or cited before any
court except for the purpose of establishing
the defense of res judicata, collateral
estoppel, or the law of the case.
ATTORNEY FOR APPELLANT ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE
Hilary Bowe Ricks Gregory F. Zoeller
Indianapolis, Indiana Attorney General of Indiana
Lyubov Gore
Deputy Attorney General of Indiana
Indianapolis, Indiana
IN THE
COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA
Allen Riley, November 30, 2015
Appellant-Defendant, Court of Appeals Case No.
49A02-1503-CR-151
v. Appeal from the Marion Superior
Court, Criminal Division 1
State of Indiana, The Honorable Kurt M. Eisgruber,
Appellee-Plaintiff. Judge
Trial Court Cause No.
49G01-1308-FA-051528
Pyle, Judge.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 49A02-1503-CR-151 | November 30, 2015 Page 1 of 23
Statement of the Case
[1] In this appeal, Allen Riley (“Riley”) appeals, following a joint jury trial with
two co-defendants,1 his convictions for Class A felony robbery,2 Class B felony
robbery,3 Class B felony unlawful possession of a firearm by a serious violent
felon,4 Class B felony aggravated battery,5 two counts of Class D felony
criminal confinement,6 and Class A misdemeanor carrying a handgun without a
license.7 On appeal, Riley contends that the trial court erred by denying his
motion to separate his trial from one of his co-defendants. Specifically, he
contends that he was prejudiced by testimony regarding his co-defendant’s out-
of-court statement. Because the co-defendant’s out-of-court statement referred
only to the co-defendant’s actions and did not reference or implicate Riley, we
conclude that the trial court did not abuse its discretion by denying Riley’s
motion for a separate trial, and we affirm Riley’s convictions. However,
1
Today, we also issue opinions in the appeals of Riley’s co-defendants. See Belk v. State, 49A05-1503-CR-
105; Carter v. State, 49A04-1503-CR-106.
2
IND. CODE § 35-42-5-1. We note that, effective July 1, 2014, a new version of this robbery statute was
enacted and that Class A felony robbery is now a Level 2 felony. Because Riley committed this crime in
2013, we will refer to the statute in effect at that time.
3
I.C. § 35-42-5-1. Pursuant to the 2014 version of the robbery statute, this Class B felony robbery offense is
now a Level 3 felony.
4
I.C. § 35-47-4-5. Pursuant to the 2014 version of the unlawful possession of a firearm by a serious violent
felon statute, this Class B felony offense is now a Level 4 felony.
5
I.C. § 35-42-2-1.5. Pursuant to the 2014 version of the aggravated battery statute, this Class B felony offense
is now a Level 3 felony.
6
I.C. § 35-42-3-3. Pursuant to the 2014 version of the criminal confinement statute, these Class D felony
offenses are now Level 6 felonies.
7
I.C. § 35-47-2-1.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 49A02-1503-CR-151 | November 30, 2015 Page 2 of 23
because the sentencing documents contained in the record indicate that the
judgments of conviction were incorrectly entered, we remand this case to the
trial court with instructions to correct these sentencing documents.
[2] We affirm and remand with instructions to clarify the sentencing documents.
Issue
Whether the trial court abused its discretion by denying Riley’s
motion for a separate trial from one of his co-defendants.
Facts8
[3] On July 10, 2013, around 5:00 p.m., Sylvester Kenney (“Kenney”) 9 and
Michael Spann (“Spann”) were at Spann’s house on North Chester Avenue in
Indianapolis. Spann did not live in this house but used it to sell marijuana.
After hearing a knock on the door, Kenney opened it, and Antwion Carter
(“Carter”) entered the house. Carter, who was armed with a gun with a laser,
pointed it at Kenney and told him to get on the floor. Carter hit Spann on the
head with the gun and told him to also get on the floor. Carter then took
money from Kenney and Spann. When Spann’s phone rang, Carter grabbed
the earpiece from Spann and threatened to shoot him in the face if he told
someone to come to the house.
8
Riley does not challenge the sufficiency of the evidence supporting his convictions; therefore, we will not
include a detailed recitation of the facts of his offenses.
9
Kenney’s nickname was “Tussy.” (Tr. 71).
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 49A02-1503-CR-151 | November 30, 2015 Page 3 of 23
[4] Thereafter, Carter went by the window, made a phone call, and said, “I got
these b****es -- y’all better hurry up.” (Tr. 152). Riley and Troy Belk (“Belk”),
who were both armed with guns, entered the house. Belk kicked Kenney in the
face, demanded money from him, and told Kenney that they had his mother
and would kill her if he did not reveal the location of the money. Kenney, who
recognized Belk, asked him, “Troy, why you doin[’] this -- Troy -- you know I
ain’t got no money[.]” (Tr. 165). Belk then grabbed a baseball bat that was in
Spann’s house and hit Kenney with it several times. During this time, Carter
continued to keep his gun pointed at Kenney. Riley unplugged the surveillance
cameras and stood over Spann with his gun pointed at him. When Spann
looked up at Riley, he told Spann that he would shoot Spann in the face if
Spann looked at him again.
[5] Thereafter, Carter and Belk dragged Kenney into the kitchen, continued to beat
him, and asked him where the “stuff” was. (Tr. 264). Riley then grabbed
Spann by the shirt, dragged him to the kitchen, and continued to hold his gun
on him. Belk “ra[n]sack[ed]” the kitchen and rummaged through closets while
Riley kept his gun pointed at Spann. (Tr. 158). Riley said that he had an “itchy
trigger finger” and cocked his gun. (Tr. 158). At that same time, the doorbell
rang. Belk and Riley ran to the door while Carter, still armed and pointing his
gun at Kenney, stayed in the kitchen with Kenney and Spann. Belk said, “open
the door and let him in -- we gonna kill him with these two.” (Tr. 159).
[6] At that point, Kenney jumped on Carter and told Spann to run. Kenney
punched Carter, who then shot Kenney in the face. Spann ran down the hall,
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 49A02-1503-CR-151 | November 30, 2015 Page 4 of 23
saw Kenney fall to the ground, and saw a “flame” or a bullet coming toward
him. (Tr. 161). Spann then dove out the window and ran down the alley,
yelling repeatedly, “They tryin[’] to kill us.” (Tr. 163).
[7] Later, when officers from Indianapolis Metropolitan Police Department
(“IMPD”) arrived on the scene, Spann gave them the name “Troy” as a
suspect. (Tr. 84, 163, 165). Spann and Kenney were both taken to the hospital,
and Kenney was placed into a medically-induced coma. In the days following
the crimes, IMPD officers investigated the crimes and subsequently showed
photographic arrays to Kenney and Spann, who identified Carter, Belk, and
Riley as the perpetrators of the crimes.
[8] On August 7, 2013, the State charged Riley, individually, with seven counts.
Then, on September 16, 2013, the State amended the charging information by
including an additional count against Riley and by combining it with Carter
and Belk’s previously filed joint charging information. Thus, the amended joint
information contained ten counts, eight of which applied to Riley: Count I,
Class B felony aggravated battery (of Kenney); Count II, Class C felony battery
(of Spann); Count III, Class A felony robbery (of Spann); Count IV, Class B
felony criminal confinement (of Kenney); Count V, Class B felony criminal
confinement (of Spann); Count VIII, Class B felony unlawful possession of a
firearm by a serious violent felon; Count IX, Class A misdemeanor carrying a
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 49A02-1503-CR-151 | November 30, 2015 Page 5 of 23
handgun without a license with an enhancement to a Class C felony based on a
prior conviction; and Count X, Class A felony robbery (of Kenney).10
[9] In September 2014, while Carter was incarcerated, he told Ronnie Archer
(“Archer”)—who was in the same cell block as Carter and dated Carter’s
cousin—about the robbery. According to Archer, Carter told Archer that he
had shot somebody and “asked [him] how could somebody get shot in the head
and don’t die.” (Tr. 341). Thereafter, Archer talked to the police about his
conversation with Carter.
[10] On October 20, 2014, Belk filed a “Motion for Severance from Co-Defendant,”
in which he sought a trial separate from Carter.11 (App. 72). In the motion,
Belk asserted that the State was planning to introduce, in the joint trial, a letter
that was purportedly written by Carter and that contained incriminating
statements he had made.12 In this letter, which Carter was alleged to have sent
from jail, he asked someone to kidnap Kenney’s mother in an effort to keep
Kenney from testifying at the joint trial. The letter provided, in part, that
“[s]omebody got to grab her [Kenney’s mother] up and hold her until we go to
10
Counts I-V and Count X were charged against Riley, Carter, and Belk. Counts VIII and IX were charged
against Riley only. Count VI, Class D felony criminal confinement (of Lacie Willis), and Count VII, Class D
felony intimidation (of Willis), were charged against Carter only.
11
The parties refer to this motion and the motion made at trial as a motion to sever or a motion for
severance. Because these motions are actually motions for a separate trial from Carter—as opposed to a
motion for severance of offenses—we will refer to the motions as motions for a separate trial. Compare I.C. §
35-34-1-11(a) (relating to severance of offenses for one defendant) with I.C. § 35-34-1-11(b) (relating to
separate trials for defendants).
12
As a result of this letter, Carter was later charged with attempted kidnapping.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 49A02-1503-CR-151 | November 30, 2015 Page 6 of 23
trial to make sure that he [Kenney] don’t come because he been coming and he
gonna keep coming unless we get her tied up somewhere and then we know we
good at trial.” (Ex. Vol. at 57). The letter also stated, “His mother is the key to
freeing us.” Id. Belk argued that admission of the letter in a joint trial with
Carter would be prejudicial and would constitute a violation of his Sixth
Amendment rights pursuant to Bruton v. United States, 391 U.S. 123 (1968).13
Riley joined in the motion for a separate trial.
[11] On January 30, 2015, the trial court held a final pre-trial hearing, which
included argument on the motion for a separate trial. Riley and Belk argued
that the admission of the letter would create a Bruton issue due to Carter’s
reference to “we” and “us” contained in the letter and their inability to cross-
examine Carter. (Tr. 494-97). The trial court ruled that the letter would not be
admissible, and it denied Belk and Riley’s joint motion for a separate trial.
[12] This pre-trial hearing was held on the Friday before the Monday trial. At the
end of this hearing, the prosecutor, who had originally listed Archer on the
State’s witness list, told the trial court and the defendants that the State was not
planning on calling Archer as a witness. However, during the weekend, the
prosecutor contacted the defendants’ attorneys to notify them that the State was
going to call Archer as a witness.
13
In Bruton, “the United States Supreme Court held that in a joint trial, admission of one defendant’s
confession that implicates another defendant is a violation of the second defendant’s Sixth Amendment right
to confront witnesses.” Fayson v. State, 726 N.E.2d 292, 294 (Ind. 2000) (citing Bruton, 391 U.S. at 124-26).
Because “[t]he confessing defendant cannot be required to take the stand, . . . the result is a denial of the
other defendant’s right to cross-examine.” Id. (citing Bruton, 391 U.S. at 137).
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 49A02-1503-CR-151 | November 30, 2015 Page 7 of 23
[13] The trial court held a two-day jury trial on February 2-3, 2015. Prior to trial,
the State filed an amended charging information for jury purposes. In this joint
information, the State charged the robbery of Spann as a lesser included B
felony; omitted some of the charges, including the charge and enhancement
that needed to be bifurcated; and renumbered the remaining charges. Thus, for
the purposes of trial, the joint charging information contained the following
seven charges: Count I, Class A felony robbery (of Kenney); Count II, Class B
felony robbery (of Spann); Count III, Class B felony aggravated battery (of
Kenney); Count IV, Class B felony criminal confinement (of Kenney); Count V,
Class B felony criminal confinement (of Spann); and Count VI, Class A
misdemeanor carrying a handgun without a license. 14
[14] Before the jury trial commenced, the State discussed its plan to present Archer
as a witness. The prosecutor stated that Archer was not going to testify about
the excluded letter and that, instead, he would “talk about conversations he had
directly with Antwion Carter [while in jail] about Antwion Carter’s case only
and none of the other co-defendants.” (Tr. 5). Riley then made an oral motion
to separate his trial from Carter’s trial. Riley acknowledged that Archer’s
testimony regarding Carter’s out-of-court statement would “go[] only to Mr.
Carter,” but he argued that the testimony would be prejudicial. (Tr. 6). In the
alternative, Riley sought to exclude Archer’s testimony regarding Carter’s
14
All six counts were against Riley, while Counts I-V were against Carter and Belk. The State also dismissed
the Class C felony battery (of Spann) charge against all the parties and the Class D felony criminal
confinement and the Class D felony intimidation charges against Carter.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 49A02-1503-CR-151 | November 30, 2015 Page 8 of 23
statement. Belk joined in Riley’s oral motion for a separate trial. Belk also
acknowledged that Archer’s proposed testimony would “not speak of Troy Belk
in any way” and that there “wo[uld]n’t be an issue in regard to that[.]” (Tr. 6).
Belk asked that he have a joint trial with Riley that was separate from Carter’s
trial. Riley’s counsel argued that the defendants had just learned during the
previous weekend that Archer’s testimony was going to include the statement
that Carter had asked how a person could get shot in the head and live. The
State argued that Archer was a known witness and that the trial court could
give a limiting instruction to the jury to inform them that Carter’s statements
could be used only against Carter and not against the other co-defendants. The
trial court denied Riley and Belk’s oral motion for a separate trial, finding that
Carter’s statement was a statement against his interest and that it was “not . . .
prejudicial such that it should be excluded.” (Tr. 11). The trial court stated that
it could provide a limiting instruction if Riley and Belk wanted one.
[15] During the trial, Archer testified that he and Carter had been in the same cell
block and had talked about “basketball, kids[,]” or “whatever[.]” (Tr. 340).
Archer also testified that Carter had talked to him about a robbery15 case and
had told him that he had shot someone. Archer testified that Carter had “asked
[him] how could somebody get shot in the head and don’t die.” (Tr. 341).
15
At the beginning of Archer’s testimony, the State initially asked Archer if he had talked to Carter about a
“burglary” case, (Tr. 340), but when the State asked Archer about Carter’s specific statements, the prosecutor
referred to a “robbery” case. (Tr. 341).
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 49A02-1503-CR-151 | November 30, 2015 Page 9 of 23
None of the defendants objected to Archer’s testimony. Neither Riley’s
attorney nor Belk’s attorney cross-examined Archer.
[16] The trial court gave the following preliminary and final jury instruction:
You should give separate consideration to each accused. Each is
entitled to have his case decided on the evidence and the law that
applies to him. Any evidence which is limited to one accused
must not be considered by you as to any other accused.
(App. 90) (capitalization of some letters put into lower case).
[17] The jury found Riley guilty as charged. Riley waived his right to a jury trial on
the bifurcated charges of Class B felony unlawful possession of a firearm by a
serious violent felon and the Class C felony enhancement to the carrying a
handgun without a license charge. During a subsequent bench trial, the trial
court found Riley guilty of the Class B felony unlawful possession of a firearm
by a serious violent felon charge, and the State dismissed the Class C felony
enhancement.
[18] The trial court held a joint sentencing hearing for Riley and his two co-
defendants. The trial court ordered that Riley’s sentences on his convictions be
served concurrently and imposed an aggregate executed sentence of thirty-five
(35) years, with thirty-two (32) years in the Department of Correction and three
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 49A02-1503-CR-151 | November 30, 2015 Page 10 of 23
years in community corrections.16 Riley now appeals the trial court’s denial of
his motion for a separate trial.
Decision
Motion for a Separate Trial
[19] Riley argues that the trial court erred by denying his motion for a trial separate
from Carter.
[20] A defendant has “no absolute right to a separate trial[.]” Rouster v. State, 705
N.E.2d 999, 1004 (Ind. 1999) (citing Lampkins v. State, 682 N.E.2d 1268
(Ind.1997), modified on reh’g by 685 N.E.2d 698 (Ind. 1997)), reh’g denied.
INDIANA CODE § 35-34-1-9 permits the joinder of two or more defendants in a
single prosecution. See also Lampkins, 682 N.E.2d at 1272. INDIANA CODE §
35-34-1-11(b), however, allows a defendant to move for a separate trial. This
statutory provision pertaining to a separation of trials for co-defendants
provides:
Whenever two (2) or more defendants have been joined for trial
in the same indictment or information and one (1) or more
defendants move for a separate trial because another defendant
has made an out-of-court statement which makes reference to the
moving defendant but is not admissible as evidence against him,
the court shall require the prosecutor to elect:
16
Because the record before us reveals numerous irregularities relating to sentencing, we will discuss the
specifics of the trial court’s sentencing after we address Riley’s issue raised on appeal.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 49A02-1503-CR-151 | November 30, 2015 Page 11 of 23
(1) a joint trial at which the statement is not admitted
into evidence;
(2) a joint trial at which the statement is admitted
into evidence only after all references to the moving
defendant have been effectively deleted; or
(3) a separate trial for the moving defendant.
In all other cases, upon motion of the defendant or the prosecutor, the
court shall order a separate trial of defendants whenever the court
determines that a separate trial is necessary to protect a defendant’s right
to a speedy trial or is appropriate to promote a fair determination of the
guilt or innocence of a defendant.
I.C. § 35-34-1-11(b) (emphasis added). Here, there is no dispute that the latter
part of the statute is applicable to the facts of this case. Indeed, the challenged
testimony did not “make reference” to Riley; therefore, the first part of the
statute, which sets forth the three options for the prosecutor, is not implicated.
See id.
[21] “The trial court has discretion to grant or deny a motion for separate trials.”
Lee v. State, 684 N.E.2d 1143, 1147 (Ind. 1997) (citing Gordon v. State, 609
N.E.2d 1085, 1088 (Ind. 1993); Underwood v. State, 535 N.E.2d 507, 514 (Ind.
1989), cert. denied, reh’g denied). “An abuse of discretion occurs when a court
denies a defendant’s properly filed motion for separate trials and the parties’
defenses are mutually antagonistic to such a degree that acceptance of one
party’s defense precludes the acquittal of the other.” Rouster, 705 N.E.2d at
1004 (citing Lampkins, 682 N.E.2d 1272). “The soundness of the trial court’s
discretion is measured by what actually transpired at trial rather than what was
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 49A02-1503-CR-151 | November 30, 2015 Page 12 of 23
alleged in the motion[.]” Averhart v. State, 470 N.E.2d 666, 680 (Ind. 1984), cert.
denied. Thus, on review, we consider the events that actually occurred at trial to
determine whether a motion for a separate trial should have been granted. See
Rouster, 705 N.E.2d at 1004-05. See also Lampkins, 682 N.E.2d at 1272. “A
defendant is not, however, entitled to a separate trial merely because a co-
defendant implicates that defendant.” Rouster, 705 N.E.2d at 1004. See also Lee,
684 N.E.2d at 1147 (holding that there is “no ground for reversal simply
because one of the codefendants implicated the defendant”). “[T]he defendant
bears the burden of showing that the denial of a separate trial subjected him to
such serious prejudice that he was denied a fair trial.” Averhart, 470 N.E.2d at
680. See also Castro v. State, 580 N.E.2d 232, 234 (Ind. 1991) (“When appellant
seeks a reversal claiming an abuse of discretion in the denial of his motion for
separate trial, he must show actual prejudice.”).
[22] Here, Riley does not contend that his defense was mutually antagonistic from
Carter’s. Indeed, at trial, all three defendants had the same defense – that they
were innocent and were misidentified by Spann and Kenney. As he did at trial,
Riley acknowledges on appeal that “Archer’s testimony that Carter had
implicitly admitted to shooting Kenney did not implicate [Riley] directly.”
(Riley’s Br. 14). Nevertheless, Riley contends that the trial court should have
separated his trial from Carter’s trial, arguing that he was prejudiced by
Archer’s testimony regarding Carter’s admission that he had shot someone.
Specifically, in support of his argument that he was prejudiced, Riley asserts
that Carter’s statement was an admission of guilt that bolstered the credibility of
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 49A02-1503-CR-151 | November 30, 2015 Page 13 of 23
Spann and Kenney’s identification of Carter as one of the perpetrators of the
crime, which “in turn bolstered the credibility of their identification of Riley” as
one of the perpetrators. (Riley’s Br. 14). Riley, however, did not object to
Archer’s testimony at trial, let alone make an objection that it was improper
bolstering, and he did not cross-examine the witness. As a result, he has
waived review of this issue. See, e.g., Morgan v. State, 400 N.E.2d 111, 114 (Ind.
1980) (holding that the defendant waived challenge to the trial court’s denial of
his motion for a separate trial from a co-defendant by failing to move for a
separate trial and that, nonetheless, his argument that he was prejudiced by a
witness was also waived because the defendant did not object to her testimony,
ask that the testimony be stricken, or cross-examine the witness).
[23] Waiver notwithstanding, Riley’s argument that he was prejudiced ultimately
relies on his contention that there was a lack of evidence regarding his
involvement in the crime. Riley acknowledges that Spann and Kenney testified
that he was one of the suspects involved in the crimes against Spann and
Kenney, but he then challenges their testimony as “not . . . sufficiently
credible[.]” (Riley’s Br. 17). Riley does not raise an argument challenging the
sufficiency of the evidence. However, this challenge to the credibility or the
weight that the jury should have given Spann’s and Kenney’s testimony is
nothing more than an inadequate attempt at a sufficiency argument and an
invitation to reweigh the evidence and reassess the jury’s credibility
determination, which we will not do. See Drane v. State, 867 N.E.2d 144, 146
(Ind. 2007).
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 49A02-1503-CR-151 | November 30, 2015 Page 14 of 23
[24] After reviewing what happened at trial, we conclude that Riley has not shown
that the trial court’s denial of his oral motion for a separate trial “subjected him
to such serious prejudice that he was denied a fair trial.” See Averhart, 470
N.E.2d at 680. “It is the defendant’s burden to show that a fair trial could not
otherwise be had, and ‘not merely that severance would enhance the prospects
for acquittal.’” Lee, 684 N.E.2d at 1149 (quoting Blacknell v. State, 502 N.E.2d
899, 905 (Ind. 1987) (citing Broadus and Dunville v. State, 487 N.E.2d 1298, 1302
(Ind. 1986)), reh’g denied). When assessing what occurred at trial, we bear in
mind that Riley does not have “a constitutional right to be protected from
damaging evidence.” Lee, 684 N.E.2d at 1147 (quoting Castro, 580 N.E.2d at
235 (citing Smith v. State, 474 N.E.2d 973 (Ind. 1985))).
[25] On the morning of trial, when moving for a separate trial, Riley acknowledged
that Archer’s testimony would refer to Carter only and not to him, but he
argued generally that the testimony would be prejudicial. The trial court ruled
that a separate trial was not necessary because Archer’s testimony was not
prejudicial, and it instructed the jury, in relevant part, that “[a]ny evidence
which is limited to one accused must not be considered by [them] as to any
other accused.” (App. 90) (capitalization of some letters put into lower case).
During the trial, when Archer testified about Carter’s admission, Riley did not
object to Carter’s testimony and did not cross-examine him. Indeed, Archer’s
testimony about Carter’s statement did not mention Riley by name nor did it
refer to any action by Riley. Instead, Carter’s out-of-court statement referred
only to his own actions, i.e., Carter shot someone in the head. Carter’s
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 49A02-1503-CR-151 | November 30, 2015 Page 15 of 23
statement did not indicate that he was with anyone or had acted in conjunction
with anyone else. Additionally, both victims, Spann and Kenney, testified and
identified Riley as one of the perpetrators of the offenses against them.
Considering the events that actually occurred at trial, we conclude that the trial
court did not abuse its discretion by denying Riley’s motion for a separate trial.
See, e.g., Brock v. State, 540 N.E.2d 1236, 1240 (Ind. 1989) (rejecting a
defendant’s argument that he was prejudiced by a co-defendant’s statement
because the statement did not attribute any act to the defendant), reh’g denied;
Wardlaw v. State, 483 N.E.2d 454, 457 (Ind. 1985) (holding that a defendant was
not entitled to a separate trial based on the co-defendant sending an apology
letter to the victim because the letter did not refer to the defendant or that the
co-defendant had acted in conjunction with another person). See also Hopper v.
State, 539 N.E.2d 944, 947 (Ind. 1989) (affirming the trial court’s denial of the
defendant’s motion to separate his trial from his co-defendant, who was absent
from the trial, where the trial court gave the jury an almost identical instruction
as the trial court did in this case).17
17
Additionally, Riley appears to argue that the trial court’s denial of his oral motion for a separate trial—
which was based on an argument that Archer’s testimony of Carter’s statement prejudiced him—was
erroneous because it resulted in a Bruton violation and a denial of his right to cross-examination. To support
his argument, he relies on Fox v. State, 384 N.E.2d 1159 (Ind. Ct. App. 1979), for the proposition that a
defendant can be implicated by a co-defendant’s confession that does not specifically refer to him by name.
See Fox, 384 N.E.2d at 1170 (stating that “it is our opinion that the Bruton rule applies with equal force to all
statements that tend significantly to incriminate a co-defendant, whether or not he is actually named in the
statement”). We find such argument is waived because Riley’s oral motion for a separate trial was not based
on an alleged Bruton violation. See Lampkins, 682 N.E.2d at 1274 (holding that “a defendant may not present
one ground for an objection at trial and advance another ground on appeal” and that an attempt to raise a
new ground on appeal will result in waiver on appeal). Waiver notwithstanding, the facts of this case do not
involve a Bruton violation because Archer’s testimony that Carter admitted to shooting a guy in the head did
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 49A02-1503-CR-151 | November 30, 2015 Page 16 of 23
Sentencing
[26] The parties to this appeal make no argument or challenge to the trial court’s
sentencing in this case. Nevertheless, we are compelled to discuss it because
there is a lack of clarity in the record regarding the entry of judgments of
conviction and corresponding sentencing.
[27] The record is clear that the jury found Riley guilty as charged in the amended
charging information that was filed just prior to trial. Specifically, the jury
found Riley guilty of: Count I, Class A felony robbery (of Kenney); Count II,
Class B felony robbery (of Spann); Count III, Class B felony aggravated battery
(of Kenney); Count IV, Class B felony criminal confinement (of Kenney);
Count V, Class B felony criminal confinement (of Spann); Count VI, Class A
misdemeanor carrying a handgun without a license. Also, in a bifurcated
proceeding, the trial court found Riley guilty of Class B felony unlawful
possession of a firearm by a serious violent felon.
[28] At the sentencing hearing, the trial court discussed how it would possibly
handle potential double jeopardy concerns with the convictions. Specifically,
the trial court stated:
not facially implicate Riley. See Fayson, 726 N.E.2d at 294 (explaining that a co-defendant's statements
violate Bruton only if they “facially incriminate” another defendant) (citing Richardson v. Marsh, 481 U.S. 200,
211 (1987)); Brock, 540 N.E.2d at 1240 (explaining that “[t]he United States Supreme Court, however, has
declined to extend Bruton to situations such as this one, which do not involve facially incriminating
declarations”) (citing Richardson, 481 U.S. 200).
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 49A02-1503-CR-151 | November 30, 2015 Page 17 of 23
Before we get to argument I just want to get the perspective and I
should have given all -- all the parties a head’s up on this -- how
do you view running these counts -- the -- if I’m runnin[g] under
that A those robberies -- that robbery becomes a C. The
confinements bump down to D’s and then the agg batt really is --
is really part of parcel of that A so I don’t know how you view
the agg batt -- does it reduce to a C or do you think that stands on
its own?
(Tr. 448). The prosecutor pointed out that the robbery conviction for the
robbery of Kenney was a Class A felony conviction and that the robbery
conviction for the robbery of Spann was a Class B felony conviction. The
parties then agreed that the Class B felony aggravated battery conviction would
“disappear” because it was an element of the Class A robbery conviction. (Tr.
450). The trial court then stated it would “merge 3 into 1 and we’ll sentence on
the remaining counts.” (Tr. 451). Thereafter, the trial court orally pronounced
the sentence on the Class A felony robbery conviction for Riley and his co-
defendants. For Riley, the trial court imposed a thirty-five (35) year executed
sentence, with thirty-two (32) years in the Department of Correction and three
(3) years in community corrections. The trial court stated that, for each of the
defendants, it would be ordering the remaining sentences to be served
concurrently to the sentence on this Class A felony robbery conviction. The
trial court, however, did not orally pronounce a sentence on the remaining
counts during the sentencing hearing. Instead, the trial court stated that it
would “break down all the remaining counts in the sentencing [order] but [that
it was] running them all as one larger criminal episode[.]” (Tr. 484). The trial
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 49A02-1503-CR-151 | November 30, 2015 Page 18 of 23
court stated that while there were “two victims and [it] normally like[d] to
apportion per victim -- [it would] not in this case.” (Tr. 484-85).
[29] From reading the transcript of the sentencing hearing, we observe that,
ultimately, the trial court merged Riley’s Class B felony aggravated battery
conviction into his Class A felony robbery conviction and imposed a thirty-five
(35) year sentence on that Class A felony conviction. A review of the
sentencing hearing also reveals that the trial court intended to enter sentences
on the Class B felony criminal confinement convictions as Class D felonies and
to enter sentences on the Class B felony robbery (of Spann) conviction, the
Class B felony unlawful possession of a firearm by a serious violent felon
conviction, and the carrying a handgun without a license conviction.
Additionally, as discussed above, the trial court stated that it would order all
sentences be served concurrently.
[30] However, the sentencing order, abstract of judgment, and chronological case
summary do not reflect this intended sentencing. Specifically, these court
documents indicate that the trial court entered the following judgments of
conviction and imposed the following sentences: (1) robbery of Kenney as a
Class A felony with a sentence of thirty (35) years; (2) robbery of Spann as a
Class A felony with a “Finding of Guilty of a Lesser Included” and with a
sentence of fifteen (15) years; (3) Class B felony aggravated battery that was
“[m]erged” into the Class A felony robbery of Kenney conviction; (4) Class B
felony criminal confinement of Kenney with a sentence of 545 days; (5) Class B
felony criminal confinement of Spann with a sentence of 545 days; (6) Class B
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 49A02-1503-CR-151 | November 30, 2015 Page 19 of 23
felony unlawful possession of a firearm by a serious violent felon with a
sentence of fifteen years; (7) Class A misdemeanor carrying a handgun without
a license with a sentence of one year. (App. 17, 19).
[31] These sentencing documents, therefore, have three issues that need to be
corrected. First, in regard to the trial court’s act of merging the Class B felony
aggravated battery into the Class A felony robbery, which were convictions for
which the trial court seems to have entered judgments of conviction, we note
that “[a] trial court’s act of merging, without also vacating the conviction, is not
sufficient to cure a double jeopardy violation” and that such a violation cannot
be remedied by the “practical effect” of merging after a conviction has been
entered. Gregory v. State, 885 N.E.2d 697, 703 (Ind. Ct. App. 2008), trans.
denied. See also Green v. State, 856 N.E.2d 703, 704 (Ind. 2006) (explaining that
“a merged offense for which a defendant is found guilty, but on which there is
neither a judgment nor a sentence, is ‘unproblematic’ as far as double jeopardy
is concerned”). Because it appears from the record that the trial court entered
judgment of conviction on Class B felony aggravated battery prior to merging
this conviction, we remand this cause to the trial court with instructions to
vacate Riley’s judgment of conviction on this offense.
[32] Second, the trial court’s sentencing documents need to be corrected to reflect
that Riley was convicted of robbery of Spann as a Class B felony. Prior to the
commencement of trial, the robbery charge against Spann was amended to a
Class B felony charge. The jury found Riley guilty of this robbery as Class B
felony, and the trial court sentenced him on the conviction to fifteen years.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 49A02-1503-CR-151 | November 30, 2015 Page 20 of 23
However, the sentencing documents indicate that the judgment of conviction
was entered as a Class A felony. The entry of judgment of conviction as a Class
A felony with a sentence of fifteen years is contrary to the statutory sentencing
range set forth for a Class A felony. See IND. CODE § 35-50-2-4 (providing that
the sentencing range for a Class A felony is between twenty (20) and fifty (50)
years). Thus, the abstract of judgment, sentencing order, and CCS should be
corrected to reflect that the judgment of conviction of this robbery of Spann was
entered as a Class B felony.
[33] Third, the trial court’s sentencing documents need to be corrected to reflect that
the trial court entered judgments of conviction on the criminal confinement
convictions as Class D felonies instead of Class B felonies. While the jury
found Riley guilty of these criminal confinement convictions as Class B
felonies, the trial court sentenced him on these as Class D felonies due to
double jeopardy concerns and imposed a sentence of 545 days on each
conviction. However, the sentencing documents indicate that the judgments of
conviction on these criminal confinement offenses were entered as Class B
felonies. Again, the entry of judgment of conviction as a Class B felony with a
sentence of 545 days is contrary to the statutory sentencing range set forth for a
Class B felony. See IND. CODE § 35-50-2-5 (providing that the sentencing range
for a Class B felony is between six (6) and twenty (20) years). Thus, the abstract
of judgment, sentencing order, and CCS should be corrected to reflect that the
judgments of conviction of these criminal confinement offenses were entered as
Class D felonies.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 49A02-1503-CR-151 | November 30, 2015 Page 21 of 23
[34] In summary, the sentencing order, abstract of judgment, and chronological case
summary should be corrected to reflect that: (1) the Class B felony aggravated
battery conviction was vacated; (2) Riley was convicted of robbery of Spann as
a Class B felony and that the trial court entered judgment of conviction as a
Class B felony; and (3) the trial court entered judgments of conviction and
sentences on the criminal confinement convictions as Class D felonies instead
of Class B felonies.18
[35] Finally, we express our concern with the trial court’s failure to impose and
pronounce sentencing on all of Riley’s convictions during the sentencing
hearing. INDIANA CODE § 35-38-1-5 provides:
When the defendant appears for sentencing, the court shall
inform the defendant of the verdict of the jury or the finding of
the court. The court shall afford counsel for the defendant an
opportunity to speak on behalf of the defendant. The defendant
may also make a statement personally in the defendant’s own
behalf and, before pronouncing sentence, the court shall ask the
defendant whether the defendant wishes to make such a
statement. Sentence shall then be pronounced, unless a sufficient cause is
alleged or appears to the court for delay in sentencing.
18
Additionally, we note that the abstract of judgment and sentencing order contain all original charges filed
against Riley, even though some of the charges were ultimately dismissed and he was not tried on some of
the other charges. We acknowledge that the abstract of judgment form, which indicates that it is a “State
Form” from the Indiana Department of Correction, appears to add to the confusion in the sentencing. (App.
17). The abstract of judgment form, in Part I, requires a trial court list the “charge[s]” against a defendant,
instead of the convictions. (App. 17). Then, Part II of the form requires the trial court to list the sentences
“[a]s a result of the above convictions[.]” (App. 17). However, the charges listed in Part I are not
convictions. Because this abstract of judgment form is used by the Department of Correction for
incarceration duration and subsequent release date information, only the actual judgments of conviction and
resulting sentences are relevant.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 49A02-1503-CR-151 | November 30, 2015 Page 22 of 23
[36] (Emphasis added). The record does not reveal “a sufficient cause” for the
delayed pronouncement of sentencing as the parties did not request a delay in
the pronouncement of sentencing nor did the trial court provide a reason why it
was waiting to “break down all the remaining counts in the sentencing” order.
(Tr. 484). At the same time, the parties did not object when the trial court
failed to pronounce the remaining sentencing during the hearing. Therefore, we
will not remand for a new sentencing hearing. However, we would encourage
the trial court, for all future sentencing, to pronounce sentencing on all
convictions during a sentencing hearing in accordance with INDIANA CODE §
35-38-1-5.
[37] Affirmed and remanded with instructions.
Vaidik, C.J., and Robb, J., concur.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 49A02-1503-CR-151 | November 30, 2015 Page 23 of 23