Matthew J. Gilbert v. State of Indiana (mem. dec.) ( 2018 )

MEMORANDUM DECISION
Pursuant to Ind. Appellate Rule 65(D), FILED
this Memorandum Decision shall not be Dec 26 2018, 7:59 am
regarded as precedent or cited before any CLERK
court except for the purpose of establishing Indiana Supreme Court
Court of Appeals
and Tax Court
the defense of res judicata, collateral
estoppel, or the law of the case.
ATTORNEY FOR APPELLANT ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE
Brian A. Karle Curtis T. Hill, Jr.
Ball Eggleston, PC Attorney General of Indiana
Lafayette, Indiana
Ellen H. Meilaender
Supervising Deputy Attorney
General
Indianapolis, Indiana
IN THE
COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA
Matthew J. Gilbert, December 26, 2018
Appellant-Defendant, Court of Appeals Case No.
18A-CR-1194
v. Appeal from the Clinton Circuit
Court
State of Indiana, The Honorable Bradley K. Mohler,
Appellee-Plaintiff. Judge
Trial Court Cause No.
12C01-1709-F5-950
Najam, Judge.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 18A-CR-1194 | December 26, 2018 Page 1 of 9
Statement of the Case
[1] Matthew J. Gilbert appeals his conviction for escape, as a Level 5 felony,
following a bench trial.1 Gilbert raises a single issue for our review, which we
restate as whether the State presented sufficient evidence to show that he was
under lawful detention when he committed his alleged escape. We affirm.
Facts and Procedural History
[2] On September 3, 2017, law enforcement officers in Clinton County responded
to a report of a gunshot inside a residence. In particular, Stephanie Creasy, an
occupant of the residence, reported that Gilbert was inside, was “suicidal,” and
“wanted to go out in a blaze of glory.” Tr. at 9. According to the information
available to the responding officers, Gilbert was “in possession [of] several
firearms as well as body armor and . . . possibly had long range capabilities.”
Id. at 8.
[3] Responding officers staged themselves at a reasonable distance from the
residence and attempted to communicate with Gilbert, who was still inside the
residence. Officers then saw Gilbert exit the residence and proceed toward a
nearby wooded area. The officers were concerned that he was “familiar with
the property” while they were not, and that he could “sneak around and
possibly . . . ambush . . . law enforcement.” Id. at 11.
1
Gilbert does not appeal his contemporaneous convictions for intimidation, as a Level 6 felony, or resisting
law enforcement, as a Class A misdemeanor.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 18A-CR-1194 | December 26, 2018 Page 2 of 9
[4] Officers located Gilbert inside the woods, and Clinton County Sheriff’s Deputy
Dennis Tillman gave “loud commands for him to stop.” Id. at 12. Instead,
Gilbert fled back toward his residence. Deputy Tillman pursued on foot and
“grabbed a hold of” Gilbert; Gilbert then grabbed “one of the trees . . . to
prevent” himself from “being detained.” Id. at 13. In the ensuing scuffle,
Gilbert attempted to grab Deputy Tillman and was “in close proximity to
Deputy Tillman’s weapons.” Id. Mulberry Deputy Town Marshall Jeremy
Rushton, who was nearby, discharged his taser into Gilbert to regain control of
the situation. Deputy Rushton then ordered Gilbert to put his hands behind his
back, but Gilbert refused to comply. Deputy Rushton tased Gilbert again, after
which officers were able to secure Gilbert in handcuffs.
[5] Pursuant to local policy for suicide calls, officers escorted Gilbert to EMS
providers on the scene for those providers to determine if “there’s any need to
go further.” Id. at 42. However, Gilbert “refused all medical treatment” on the
scene, denied that he was suicidal, and “didn’t even want the [taser] probes
removed from him . . . .” Id. at 14. Due to his refusal to be assessed at the
scene, Clinton County Sheriff’s Lieutenant Ronald Blackwell transported
Gilbert to a local hospital “for evaluation by an ER doctor” and to have the
doctor determine “whether or not the subject needs to be detained for an
emergency detention order.” Id. at 42.
[6] In the emergency room, Gilbert again refused to cooperate or be evaluated.
When the treating doctor suggested that officers might need to proceed with an
emergency-detention order in light of Gilbert’s noncooperation, Gilbert got
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 18A-CR-1194 | December 26, 2018 Page 3 of 9
“amped up and didn’t wan[t to] be in the ER” and said “he was go[ing to] start
destroying things.” Id. at 43. Lieutenant Blackwell then took Gilbert out of the
emergency room and into the ambulance bay with Clinton County Sheriff’s
Deputy D.A. Sturgis and a hospital security officer, Cameron Carlson.
Lieutenant Blackwell then called the local prosecutor to determine whether to
release Gilbert “without knowing what his mental status was” or to “go ahead
and arrest him for resisting law enforcement.” Id. at 43. Lieutenant Blackwell
later clarified that the concern “with simply arresting him at that point was that
he could bond right out without receiving any evaluation or any help.” Id. at
50.
[7] Gilbert “understood” that he “was in detention” and “not free to go” while at
the hospital. Id. at 51, 60. Nonetheless, after Lieutenant Blackwell had
dropped him off at the ambulance bay, Gilbert “immediate[ly] bolt[ed] . . . to
the doorway” and “attempted to plow through still handcuffed . . . .” Id. at 58.
After Gilbert had fled ten to fifteen feet, Deputy Sturgis and Carlson
reapprehended him. Gilbert than began to “verbally abuse” Carlson. Id. at 59.
[8] The State charged Gilbert with escape, as a Level 5 felony; intimidation (of
Carlson), as a Level 6 felony; and resisting law enforcement, as a Class A
misdemeanor. The State’s charge for escape was based on Gilbert fleeing from
“lawful detention” at the hospital. Appellant’s App. Vol. 2 at 6. The State’s
charge for resisting law enforcement was based on Gilbert’s resisting of Deputy
Tillman at the residence “and/or” Deputy Sturgis at the hospital. Id. at 8.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 18A-CR-1194 | December 26, 2018 Page 4 of 9
[9] In the State’s ensuing closing argument to the court at trial, the prosecutor
argued that the evidence, which included the testimony of each of the above
officers, showed that Gilbert had “resisted” Deputy Tillman in the woods at the
residence. Tr. at 68. The prosecutor then argued that, while Gilbert was “[s]till
detained” at the hospital, Gilbert “decide[d] to get up and run.” Id. In rebuttal,
the prosecutor clarified that Gilbert “was getting arrested for resisting [at the
residence]. So he was in detention [at the hospital]. He was in lawful detention
when he chose to leave from that lawful detention.” Id. at 70. The trial court
specifically found Gilbert guilty of resisting law enforcement based on his
resistance of Deputy Tillman at the residence. Id. at 72. The court then also
found Gilbert guilty of escape and intimidation and entered judgment of
conviction and sentence accordingly. This appeal ensued.
Discussion and Decision
[10] Gilbert appeals his conviction for escape, as a Level 5 felony. Although Gilbert
frames his argument on appeal otherwise, this appeal challenges the sufficiency
of the evidence supporting his conviction. As our Supreme Court has stated:
When an appeal raises “a sufficiency of evidence challenge, we
do not reweigh the evidence or judge the credibility of the
witnesses, and we respect a fact-finder’s ‘exclusive province to
weigh conflicting evidence.’” Joslyn v. State, 942 N.E.2d 809, 811
(Ind. 2011) (quoting Alkhalidi v. State, 753 N.E.2d 625, 627 (Ind.
2001)). We consider only the probative evidence and the
reasonable inferences that support the verdict. Tharp v. State, 942
N.E.2d 814, 816 (Ind. 2011). “We will affirm ‘if the probative
evidence and reasonable inferences drawn from the evidence
could have allowed a reasonable trier of fact to find the defendant
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 18A-CR-1194 | December 26, 2018 Page 5 of 9
guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.’” Joslyn, 942 N.E.2d at 811
(quoting Tobar v. State, 740 N.E.2d 109, 111-12 (Ind. 2000)).
Phipps v. State, 90 N.E.3d 1190, 1195 (Ind. 2018).
[11] To show that Gilbert committed escape, as a Level 5 felony, the State was
required to show that Gilbert intentionally fled “from lawful detention . . . .”
Ind. Code § 35-44.1-3-4(a) (2018). The Indiana Code defines “lawful
detention” as follows:
“Lawful detention” means:
(1) arrest;
(2) custody following surrender in lieu of arrest;
(3) detention in a penal facility;
(4) detention in a facility for custody of persons alleged or found
to be delinquent children;
(5) detention under a law authorizing civil commitment in lieu of
criminal proceedings or authorizing such detention while
criminal proceedings are held in abeyance;
(6) detention for extradition or deportation;
(7) placement in a community corrections program’s residential
facility;
(8) electronic monitoring;
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 18A-CR-1194 | December 26, 2018 Page 6 of 9
(9) custody for purposes incident to any of the above including
transportation, medical diagnosis or treatment, court
appearances, work, or recreation; or
(10) any other detention for law enforcement purposes.
I.C. § 35-31.5-2-186(a).
[12] According to Gilbert:
At the time [he] committed the alleged escape, he was not under
arrest. The police detained Gilbert and transported him to a local
hospital in an attempt to obtain a medical evaluation and perhaps
an emergency detention order. This circumstance falls outside
the statutory definition of “lawful detention” as required for
felony escape.
Appellant’s Br. at 12. That is, Gilbert argues that being escorted by law
enforcement officers to a hospital for the officers to obtain a medical evaluation
to determine whether an emergency detention order is necessary is not an arrest
and is not “any other detention for law enforcement purposes” pursuant to
Indiana Code Section 35-31.5-2-186(a)(10). Gilbert then argues that certain
canons of statutory construction require this Court to narrowly construe
Indiana Code Section 35-31.5-2-186(a)(10) such that it does not apply here.
[13] Gilbert’s argument on appeal is not well taken. Officers did not escort him to
the hospital merely for a mental-health evaluation. Rather, the evidence most
favorable to his conviction demonstrates that he resisted arrest at his residence
when he fled from Deputy Tillman’s lawful command for him to stop and then
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 18A-CR-1194 | December 26, 2018 Page 7 of 9
refused to submit to Deputy Tillman’s attempt to place him in handcuffs.
Indeed, the trial court expressly found Gilbert guilty of resisting law
enforcement, as a Class A misdemeanor, based on those facts, and Gilbert does
not challenge that conviction on appeal.
[14] Accordingly, the evidence most favorable to Gilbert’s conviction for escape
shows that officers had placed Gilbert under arrest at the residence for resisting
law enforcement, although pursuant to sound local policy for potentially
suicidal persons the officers then escorted him to a local hospital rather than to
the jail. At the hospital, Gilbert “understood” that he “was in detention” and
“not free to go.” Tr. at 51. And, while Lieutenant Blackwell testified that he
had asked the prosecutor at the hospital whether officers should “go ahead and
arrest” Gilbert for resisting, id. at 43, we think it is clear that Lieutenant
Blackwell did not mean the initial arrest of Gilbert but instead meant whether
the officers should complete the booking process. Indeed, Lieutenant Blackwell
clarified that his concern was that completing the booking process without a
mental evaluation would simply allow Gilbert to “bond right out without
receiving . . . any help.” Id. at 50. Thus, the State presented sufficient evidence
to show that Gilbert was under arrest while at the hospital and, as such, under
lawful detention.
[15] We also note that “lawful detention” includes “custody for purposes incident”
to arrest. I.C. § 35-31.5-2-186(a)(9). Hence, even if the evidence were not
sufficient to show that officers had placed Gilbert under arrest at the residence,
there is no question that the evidence is sufficient to show that the officers
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 18A-CR-1194 | December 26, 2018 Page 8 of 9
nonetheless had taken him into their custody incident to making a
determination whether to arrest him. The State’s evidence is sufficient to show
that Gilbert was in lawful detention under that subsection as well.
[16] We hold that the State presented sufficient evidence to show that Gilbert was
under lawful detention while he was handcuffed at the hospital after his having
resisted law enforcement officers at his residence. Accordingly, the State
presented sufficient evidence to show that Gilbert committed escape, as a Level
5 felony, when he fled from lawful detention. We affirm his conviction.
[17] Affirmed.
Pyle, J., and Altice, J., concur.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 18A-CR-1194 | December 26, 2018 Page 9 of 9