Clinton Davis v. State of Indiana (mem. dec.) ( 2015 )

MEMORANDUM DECISION
Pursuant to Ind. Appellate Rule 65(D), this Apr 16 2015, 10:09 am
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.
APPELLANT PRO SE ATTORNEY FOR APPELLEE
Clinton Davis Gregory F. Zoeller
Michigan City, Indiana Attorney General of Indiana
Richard C. Webster
Deputy Attorney General
Indianapolis, Indiana
IN THE
COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA
Clinton Davis, April 16, 2015
Appellant-Petitioner, Court of Appeals Case No.
48A02-1408-CR-603
v. Appeal from the Madison Circuit
Court.
The Honorable Rudolph R. Pyle III,
State of Indiana, Judge.
Appellee-Plaintiff Cause No. 48D01-9502-CF-67
Baker, Judge.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 48A02-1408-CR-603 | April 16, 2015 Page 1 of 5
[1] Clinton Davis appeals the trial court’s denial of his motion to correct sentence.
Finding that his claim is barred by the doctrine of res judicata, we affirm.
Facts
[2] On February 22, 1995, Davis, armed with a handgun, entered a church in
Anderson where his wife was attending services. He fired the gun twice, once
towards the ceiling and once towards his wife, missing her. Davis then fled the
church and hid in an abandoned building. When two police officers arrived
and approached the building, Davis fled once more. As the officers chased
Davis through backyards and over fences, Davis fired two shots at the officers,
missing both times.
[3] On August 22, 1996, a jury found Davis guilty of three counts of class A felony
attempted murder, two counts of class D felony resisting law enforcement, and
one count of class D felony criminal recklessness. The trial court sentenced
Davis to two consecutive terms of forty years for two of his attempted murder
convictions. All other terms were ordered to be served concurrent with these
terms, resulting in a total sentence of eighty years.
[4] Davis appealed and this Court affirmed in a memorandum decision. Davis v.
State, No. 48A02-9703-CR-179 (Ind. Ct. App. Feb. 26, 1998). Our Supreme
Court denied transfer. Davis then petitioned for post-conviction relief, arguing
that his convictions arose out of a single episode of criminal conduct and that
his sentence should therefore have been limited according to Indiana Code
section 35-50-1-2 as it existed at the time of his offense. The post-conviction
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 48A02-1408-CR-603 | April 16, 2015 Page 2 of 5
court determined that Davis’s actions did not constitute a single episode of
criminal conduct and this Court affirmed that ruling on appeal. Davis. v. State,
No. 48A02-0402-PC-191 (Ind. Ct. App. Sept. 17, 2004). Our Supreme Court
again denied transfer.
[5] Davis then filed a series of motions to correct sentence. Between 2007 and
2011, Davis filed four such motions, all of which were denied by the trial court.
All of these denials were affirmed on appeal. Davis v. State, No. 48A05-1110-
CR-547, 2012 WL 1655162, at *1-2 (Ind. Ct. App. May 9, 2012).
[6] Davis filed a new motion to correct sentence in the trial court on June 9, 2014.
The trial court denied this motion on July 28, 2014. Davis then filed a reply to
the State’s response to his motion to correct sentence. The trial court treated
this as a motion to reconsider and denied the motion on August 15, 2014.
Davis now appeals the denial of his fifth motion to correct sentence.1
Discussion and Decision
[7] We find that Davis’s claim is barred by the doctrine of res judicata. “The
doctrine of res judicata prevents the repetitious litigation of that which is
essentially the same dispute.” Holmes v. State, 728 N.E.2d 164, 168 (Ind. 2000).
In Holmes, our Supreme Court held that “when this Court decides an issue on
1
In this case, Davis has filed a motion to transfer the transcripts and appendices from his direct appeal, Davis
v. State, No. 48A02-9703-CR-179, to this Court to be included in the record of this appeal. Accordingly, we
have taken these records into consideration.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 48A02-1408-CR-603 | April 16, 2015 Page 3 of 5
direct appeal, the doctrine of res judicata applies, thereby precluding its review
in post-conviction proceedings.” Id. Likewise, the doctrine applies here to
preclude Davis from re-litigating an issue that was decided by this Court during
post-conviction proceedings in 2004.
[8] Here, Davis again argues that his consecutive sentences are improper because
his convictions arose out of a single episode of criminal conduct. Indiana Code
section 35-50-1-2 provides:
[E]xcept for crimes of violence,[2] the total of the consecutive terms of
imprisonment . . . to which the defendant is sentenced for felony
convictions arising out of an episode of criminal conduct shall not
exceed the advisory sentence for a felony which is one (1) class of
felony higher than the most serious of the felonies for which the person
has been convicted.
Consequently, Davis maintains that his sentence should not exceed the
advisory sentence for murder—one class higher than attempted murder—as it
existed at the time he committed the offenses.
[9] However, this Court rejected precisely this argument over ten years ago. On
appeal from the denial of post-conviction relief, we found that Davis’s three
attempted murder convictions did not arise out of a single episode of criminal
2
This clause was added in 1995 and applies to crimes committed after June 30, 1995. At the time of Davis’s
offense, this statute was not so limited, so Davis’s convictions for attempted murder fall within the sentencing
limitation. Davis, 48A02-0402-PC-191, slip op. at *5 n. 1.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 48A02-1408-CR-603 | April 16, 2015 Page 4 of 5
conduct. Davis v. State, No. 48A02-0402-PC-191, slip op. at *9 (Ind. Ct. App.
Sept. 17, 2004). The Court noted:
[T]here are two distinct episodes: the initial confrontation with his wife
inside the church, and the subsequent confrontation with police
following a chase. The attempted murder of [his wife] and the
attempted murders of the police officers are “sufficiently unrelated and
may each be described independently without referring to the specific
details of the other.”
Id. (quoting Newman v. State, 690 N.E.2d 735, 737 (Ind. Ct. App. 1998)).
Consequently, Davis’s claim is barred by the doctrine of res judicata.
[10] The judgment of the trial court is affirmed.
Najam, J., and Friedlander, J., concur.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 48A02-1408-CR-603 | April 16, 2015 Page 5 of 5