Myron Tools v. State of Indiana (mem. dec.) ( 2016 )

MEMORANDUM DECISION
Pursuant to Ind. Appellate Rule 65(D), FILED
this Memorandum Decision shall not be
Sep 30 2016, 7:42 am
regarded as precedent or cited before any
court except for the purpose of establishing CLERK
Indiana Supreme Court
the defense of res judicata, collateral Court of Appeals
and Tax Court
estoppel, or the law of the case.
ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLANT ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE
Ruth Johnson Gregory F. Zoeller
Patricia Caress McMath Attorney General of Indiana
Marion County Public Defender Agency
Monika Prekopa Talbot
Indianapolis, Indiana Deputy Attorney General
Indianapolis, Indiana
IN THE
COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA
Myron Tools, September 30, 2016
Appellant-Defendant, Court of Appeals Case No.
49A02-1512-CR-2073
v. Appeal from the
Marion Superior Court
State of Indiana, The Honorable
Appellee-Plaintiff. Marshelle Broadwell, Magistrate
Trial Court Cause No.
49G17-1508-F6-29908
Kirsch, Judge.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 49A02-1512-CR-2073 | September 30, 2016 Page 1 of 22
[1] Myron Tools (“Tools”) was convicted following a jury trial of battery resulting
in moderate bodily injury1 as a Level 6 felony, criminal confinement2 as a Level
6 felony, domestic battery3 as a Class A misdemeanor, and battery resulting in
bodily injury4 as a Class A misdemeanor and pleaded guilty to being a habitual
offender.5 The trial court sentenced Tools to two and one-half years for each of
the two Level 6 felonies and one year for the Class A misdemeanor domestic
battery and ordered the sentences to be served concurrently in the Indiana
Department of Correction. The trial court did not sentence Tools for the Class
A misdemeanor battery resulting in bodily injury; instead, the court merged that
count into the domestic battery count. Tr. at 293. The trial court also
sentenced Tools to two and one-half years for being a habitual offender, and
ordered that sentence to run consecutive to the other sentences, for an aggregate
sentence of five years. Tools appeals, raising the following restated issues:
I. Whether the trial court erred in refusing Tools’s instruction on
presumption of innocence;
II. Whether Tools’s convictions for Level 6 felony battery
resulting in moderate bodily injury and Class A misdemeanor
1
See Ind. Code § 35-42-2-1(e)(1).
2
See Ind. Code § 35-42-3-3(a).
3
See Ind. Code § 35-42-2-1.3(a).
4
See Ind. Code § 35-42-2-1(d)(1).
5
See Ind. Code § 35-50-2-8.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 49A02-1512-CR-2073 | September 30, 2016 Page 2 of 22
domestic battery violate the double jeopardy protections set forth
in the Indiana Constitution; 6 and
III. Whether the case should be remanded with instructions that
the trial court prepare a new sentencing order to correct errors
found in the existing sentencing order.
[2] We affirm in part, vacate in part, and remand with instructions.
Facts and Procedural History
[3] In August 2015, Tools and N.N., who had resided together for over five years,
lived with their three-year-old daughter in an apartment located in Marion
County, Indiana. During the night of August 19 through the morning of
August 20, 2015, the couple’s shared use of a car created conflict, causing Tools
to become increasingly agitated with N.N. That night, Tools cursed and yelled
at N.N. to hurry up as he waited to pick her up. He also yelled at N.N. while
ordering her to drive him to a friend’s house. Later that night, Tools called and
told N.N. to pick him up; when N.N. refused, Tools became angry and, again
cursing, said he was “coming to get [his] shit.” Tr. at 89.
[4] N.N., thinking that Tools wanted to break up with her, drove to the house of
her mother (“Joyce”) and dropped off her child to be cared for by N.N.’s sister.
N.N. left her car at Joyce’s house, and N.N. and Joyce drove back in Joyce’s
6
Tools’s only double jeopardy claim arises under the Indiana Constitution; he raises no claim under the
United States Constitution.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 49A02-1512-CR-2073 | September 30, 2016 Page 3 of 22
car to N.N.’s apartment to pack up Tools’s belongings. While N.N. was
packing, Tools arrived at the apartment; he was very angry and accused N.N. of
hiding the couple’s child and the car. Tools then ordered N.N. to get a blanket
from upstairs and followed her while yelling. The fight escalated, and Tools
kicked and damaged the couple’s 55-inch flat-screen television. N.N. screamed,
prompting Joyce to run upstairs. Joyce urged N.N. to leave, but Tools would
not let N.N. leave and ordered her to finish packing his things. Tools then
grabbed N.N. by her hair and began punching her head and face with a closed
fist, causing N.N. extreme pain. Joyce tried to push Tools off of N.N., but was
unsuccessful.
[5] Tools picked N.N. up off the floor and said he was sorry. Joyce left to get the
car while N.N. lay on the couch with her head pounding in pain. Tools
proceeded to pull N.N. off the couch and onto the floor; he then leaned over
her telling her, repeatedly, that he was sorry. N.N. tried to leave, but was
unable to do so because Tools was on top of her. Tools eventually released
N.N., who left the apartment with Joyce.
[6] An examination at the hospital revealed that N.N. had a cut on her head, a
knot and some abrasions on her forehead, and a swollen nose. Indianapolis
Metropolitan Police Officer Gene Smith (“Officer Smith”) was dispatched to
the hospital to speak with N.N. and noted that N.N. had a knot on her
forehead, and her nose was swollen. N.N. told Officer Smith that Tools had
battered her.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 49A02-1512-CR-2073 | September 30, 2016 Page 4 of 22
[7] Tools was arrested and initially charged with Level 6 felony battery resulting in
moderate bodily injury; Level 6 felony intimidation; Level 6 felony criminal
confinement; domestic battery enhanced to a Level 6 felony based on prior
domestic battery convictions; and Class A misdemeanor battery resulting in
bodily injury. Prior to trial, the State moved to dismiss the intimidation count
and chose not to prosecute the enhancement for domestic battery. Appellant’s
App. at 29-31. This resulted in the State filing an amended information
charging Tools with: Count I, Level 6 felony battery resulting in moderate
bodily injury; Count II, Level 6 felony criminal confinement; Count III, Class
A misdemeanor domestic battery; and Count IV, Class A misdemeanor battery
resulting in bodily injury. Id. at 77-78. Also prior to trial, the State filed an
information alleging Tools was a habitual offender.
[8] At the commencement of trial, Tools tendered to the trial court Preliminary
Instruction No. 1,7 an instruction on presumption of innocence. The trial court
refused Tools’s instruction, concluding that the substance of the instruction was
covered by the trial court’s other instructions, particularly Preliminary
Instruction No. 7. The jury found Tools guilty on all four counts, and Tools
pleaded guilty to being a habitual offender.
[9] During the sentencing hearing, the trial court stated:
7
Tools tendered numerous instructions, all of which were refused, but only one of which forms the basis of
this appeal, Preliminary Instruction No. 1.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 49A02-1512-CR-2073 | September 30, 2016 Page 5 of 22
[A]s to Battery with Moderate Bodily Injury, 2 1/2 years,
Confinement as a Level 6 Felony, 2 1/2 years, Domestic Battery
as a Class A misdemeanor, 1 year, um battery as a class a
misdemeanor, merges into a domestic battery count. Those
counts will all run concurrent, meaning at the same time. The
habitual offender enhancement will run consecutive . . . .
Tr. at 293. While recognizing that being a habitual offender is an enhancement,
the trial court did not attach the habitual offender finding to enhance the
sentence for one of Tools’s felony convictions; instead, the trial court ordered,
the habitual offender enhancement “will run consecutive.” Id. Tools now
appeals.
Discussion and Decision
I. Jury Instructions
[10] Tools argues that it was reversible error for the trial court to refuse his tendered
Preliminary Instruction No. 1, which read:
Under the law of this state, a person charged with a crime is
presumed to be innocent. This presumption continues in favor of the
accused throughout the trial of this cause. To overcome the
presumption of innocence, the State must prove the Defendant
guilty of each essential element of the crime charged, beyond a
reasonable doubt.
The Defendant is not required to present any evidence to prove
his/her innocence or to prove or explain anything.
You should attempt to fit the evidence to the presumption that
the Defendant is innocent.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 49A02-1512-CR-2073 | September 30, 2016 Page 6 of 22
If the evidence in this case is susceptible of two (2) constructions or
interpretations, each of which appears to you to be reasonable, and one of
which points to the guilt of the Defendant, and the other to his innocence,
it is your duty, under the law to adopt that interpretation which is
consistent with the Defendant’s innocence, and reject that which points to
his guilt.
Appellant’s App. at 94 (emphasis added).
[11] The trial court refused this tendered instruction on the grounds that the content
was adequately covered in other instructions. Omitting the emphasized
language of Tools’s Preliminary Instruction No. 1, the trial court’s Preliminary
Instruction No. 7 read:
Under the law of this State, a person charged with a crime is
presumed to be innocent. To overcome the presumption of
innocence, the State must prove the Defendant guilty of each
element of the crime charged, beyond a reasonable doubt.
The Defendant is not required to present any evidence to prove
his innocence or to prove or explain anything. You should
attempt to fit the evidence to the presumption that the Defendant
is innocent and the theory that every witness is telling the truth.
Id. at 116.
[12] “The Fourteenth Amendment requires the trial court to instruct the jury in
criminal cases that the accused is presumed innocent until proven guilty beyond
a reasonable doubt.” McCowan v. State, 27 N.E.3d 760, 763 (Ind. 2015).
Failure to give a requested instruction on the presumption of innocence,
however, is not in and of itself a violation of the Constitution. Kentucky v.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 49A02-1512-CR-2073 | September 30, 2016 Page 7 of 22
Whorton, 441 U.S. 786, 789 (1979). “Indeed, the purpose of a jury instruction is
to inform the jury of the law applicable to the facts without misleading the jury
and to enable it to comprehend the case clearly and arrive at a just, fair, and
correct verdict.” McCowan, 27 N.E.3d at 764 (citation omitted) (internal
quotation marks omitted).
[13] Citing to McCowan, Tools contends that the trial court erred when it refused
Preliminary Instruction No. 1. In McCowan, our Supreme Court stated, “A
defendant in a criminal case is per se entitled to a jury instruction that the
defendant is presumed innocent until proven guilty beyond a reasonable
doubt.” Id. at 766. Clarifying its holdings in Farley v. State, 127 Ind. 419, 420,
26 N.E. 898, 899 (1891) and Robey v. State, 454 N.E.2d 1221, 1222 (Ind. 1983),
the Court recognized, “In addition, the defendant is entitled to request the
following jury instruction, and the trial court must give this instruction if
requested: ‘The presumption of innocence continues in favor of the defendant
throughout the trial. You should fit the evidence to the presumption that the
defendant is innocent if you can reasonably do so.’” McCowan, 27 N.E.3d at
766. The McCowan Court referred to this as a “bright-line” rule. Id. The Court,
however, went on to say, “If the defendant adds to or varies this language in his
request, inclusion of that variation remains within the discretion of the trial
court, under the traditional three-prong analysis established by our
jurisprudence.” Id.
[14] Here, Preliminary Instruction No. 1 added and varied the language from the
bright-line rule; accordingly, under McCowan, the “inclusion of that variation
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 49A02-1512-CR-2073 | September 30, 2016 Page 8 of 22
remain[ed] within the discretion of the trial court,” to be analyzed “under the
traditional three-prong analysis established by our jurisprudence.” Id. Under
the three-prong analysis, we review a trial court’s decision to give or refuse a
tendered instruction for an abuse of discretion. Id. at 763. “To determine
whether a jury instruction was properly refused, we consider: (1) whether the
tendered instruction correctly states the law; (2) whether there was evidence
presented at trial to support giving the instruction; and (3) whether the
substance of the instruction was covered by other instructions that were given.”
Id. at 763-64 (internal quotation marks omitted). In so doing, “we consider the
instructions as a whole and in reference to each other and do not reverse the
trial court for an abuse of that discretion unless the instructions as a whole
mislead the jury as to the law in the case.” Id. at 764 (citations omitted)
(internal quotation marks omitted). “An improper instruction will merit
reversal only if it ‘so affects the entire charge that the jury was misled as to the
law in the case.’” Tinkham v. State, 787 N.E.2d 440, 442 (Ind. Ct. App. 2003)
(quoting Hubbard v. State, 742 N.E.2d 919, 921 (Ind. 2001)).
[15] On appeal, Tools claims that Preliminary Instruction No. 1 “is a correct
statement of the law and the substance was not covered by the court’s
instructions.”8 Appellant’s Br. at 11. At trial, addressing the reasons to instruct
8
Because a defendant is per se entitled to an instruction on the presumption of innocence, there is no issue
on appeal regarding “whether there was evidence presented at trial to support giving the instruction.”
McCowan v. State, 27 N.E.3d 760, 763 (Ind. 2015).
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 49A02-1512-CR-2073 | September 30, 2016 Page 9 of 22
the jury on Preliminary Instruction No. 1, the following colloquy took place
between the trial court and defense counsel Tyler Doane (“Doane”):
THE COURT: What concept in your offer number one do you
think [is] not covered by the court[’s] propose[d] instructions?
MR. T. DOANE: You said [it’s] court instruction number seven,
Your Honor?
THE COURT: Yes.
MR. T. DOANE: Well, Your Honor. I guess in two parts, um
the first being that the -- the portion where the case is susceptible of two
constructions of interpretation, that um, one of which points [to] the guilt
[of] the defendant, and the other to his innocence, it’s your duty to adopt
the interpretation which [is] consistent with the defendant[’s] innocence
and reject that [which] point[s] to [his] guilt. Um, the second is that,
the -- you should, um, the portion where it said, that every
witness is telling the truth, that’s lumped in . . . with presumption
of innocence.
THE COURT: Well, the presumption of innocence is stated
twice in preliminary instruction number seven and I think it’s a
fair statement of the concept you talked about in proposed
number one, [that] the defendant is not required to present any
evidence to prove his innocence or to prove or explain anything.
You should attempt to fit the evidence to the presumption that
the defendant is innocent. I think that . . . is good enough, go on
to your next one.9
9
Tools does not address on appeal the objection he made at trial concerning the inclusion of “every witness
is telling the truth,” within Preliminary Instruction No.7.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 49A02-1512-CR-2073 | September 30, 2016 Page 10 of 22
Tr. at 16-17. As the exchange reveals, Tools’s major concern at trial was the
absence of the last paragraph (“Paragraph 4”) of Preliminary Instruction No. 1,
which read:
If the evidence in this case is susceptible of two (2) constructions
or interpretations, each of which appears to you to be reasonable,
and one of which points to the guilt of the Defendant, and the
other to his innocence, it is your duty, under the law to adopt
that interpretation which is consistent with the Defendant’s
innocence, and reject that which points to his guilt.
Appellant’s App. at 94.
[16] In Robey, our Supreme Court approved the use of an instruction that contained
the following two paragraphs:
If the evidence in this case is susceptible of two constructions or
interpretations, each of which appears to you to be reasonable,
and one of which points to the guilt of the defendant, and the
other to his innocence, it is your duty, under the law, to adopt
that interpretation which will admit of the defendant’s innocence,
and reject that which points to his guilt.
You will notice that this rule applies only when both of the two
possible opposing conclusions appear to you to be reasonable. If,
on the other hand, one of the possible conclusions should appear
to you to be reasonable and the other to be unreasonable, it
would be your duty to adhere to the reasonable deduction and to
reject the unreasonable, bearing in mind, however, that even if
the reasonable deduction points to defendant’s guilt, the entire
proof must carry the convincing force required by law to support
a verdict of guilt.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 49A02-1512-CR-2073 | September 30, 2016 Page 11 of 22
Robey, 454 N.E.2d at 1222. Paragraph 4 of Tools’s tendered instruction was
modeled after the first paragraph of the Robey instruction; however, Tools’s
Preliminary Instruction No. 1 did not include the second paragraph approved in
Robey. The omission of that second paragraph was critical. In Matheny v. State,
983 N.E.2d 672, 678 (Ind. Ct. App. 2013), aff’d on reh’g, 987 N.E.2d 1169 (Ind.
Ct. App. 2013), considering a tendered instruction that was essentially identical
to Preliminary Instruction No. 1, a panel of this court found that such
instruction, which contained only the first paragraph of the Robey instruction,
was an incomplete statement of law and that the trial court did not abuse its
discretion when it refused Matheny’s tendered instruction. Matheny, 983
N.E.2d at 680.
[17] Thereafter, our Supreme Court in McCowan confirmed that “inclusion of
[Robey’s two] paragraphs remains within the sound discretion of the trial court,
and both paragraphs should be included together, if at all.” McCowan, 27 N.E.3d at
766 n.4 (emphasis added). Here, where Tools tendered only the first of the two
paragraphs from the Robey instruction, Preliminary Instruction No.1 was an
incomplete statement of the law, and the trial court did not abuse its discretion
when it refused to use that tendered instruction.
[18] The McCowan Court also held that the following instruction must be given if
requested, “The presumption of innocence continues in favor of the defendant
throughout the trial. You should fit the evidence to the presumption that the
defendant is innocent if you can reasonably do so.” McCowan, 27 N.E.3d at
766. On appeal, Tools contends that the trial court erred in rejecting his
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 49A02-1512-CR-2073 | September 30, 2016 Page 12 of 22
tendered language that “[t]he presumption of innocence continues in favor of
the defendant throughout the trial.”10 Id. It is unclear whether McCowan
contemplates that a trial court must review a tendered instruction in its entirety
or allows a trial court to review distinct paragraphs within a single instruction,
applying different standards of review for each. We need not address this issue,
however, because Tools does not prevail under either scenario. Assuming
without deciding that the trial court erred in refusing to instruct the jury that a
presumption of innocence continues in favor of the accused throughout the trial
of this cause, that error was harmless under the facts of this case.
[19] The United States Supreme Court has said that “the failure to give a requested
instruction on the presumption of innocence does not in and of itself violate the
Constitution.” Whorton, 441 U.S. at 789. Instead, “such a failure must be
evaluated in light of the totality of the circumstances—including all the
instructions to the jury, the arguments of counsel, whether the weight of the
evidence was overwhelming, and other relevant factors—to determine whether
the defendant received a constitutionally fair trial.” Id.; see also Vaughan v. State,
446 N.E.2d 1, 3 (Ind. Ct. App. 1983) (noting that Indiana followed Whorton);
but cf. Lee v. State, 964 N.E.2d 859, 864-65 (Ind. Ct. App. 2012), trans. denied
(concluding that trial court’s refusal to give instruction on presumption of
10
In Preliminary Instruction No. 7, the trial court gave an instruction comparable to the following language
in McCowan, “You should fit the evidence to the presumption that the defendant is innocent if you can
reasonably do so.” McCowan, 27 N.E.3d at 766. Accordingly, Tools does not contend that the trial failed to
comply with this part of McCowan’s bright-line rule. Appellant’s App. at 12.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 49A02-1512-CR-2073 | September 30, 2016 Page 13 of 22
innocence was reversible error where State failed to respond to defendant’s
argument that error was not harmless). “Generally, ‘[e]rrors in the giving or
refusing of instructions are harmless where a conviction is clearly sustained by
the evidence and the jury could not properly have found otherwise.’” Matheny,
983 N.E.2d at 681 (quoting Smith v. State, 755 N.E.2d 1150, 1152 (Ind. Ct. App.
2001), trans. denied)), aff’d on reh’g, 987 N.E.2d 1169 (Ind. Ct. App. 2013).
[20] During voir dire, the trial court in the present case explained to the jury that
“[u]nder the United States Constitution, a person charged with a crime is
presume[d] innocent and . . . [t]o overcome the presumption of innocen[ce], the
State must prove beyond a reasonable doubt each essential element of the crime
charge[d].” Tr. at 50. The trial court asked the voir dire panel whether any of
them disagreed with the principle that the “defendant does not have to prove he
is innocent.” Id. None of the jurors responded.
[21] Upon review of all of the instructions, we find that the trial court’s preliminary
instructions adequately advised the jury regarding Tools’s presumption of
innocence. In Preliminary Instruction No.1, the jury was told to “keep an open
mind. You should not form or express any conclusion or judgment about the
outcome of the case until the Court submits the case to you for your
deliberations. Appellant’s App. at 102. Preliminary Instruction No. 6 informed
the jury, “The filing of a charge or the Defendant’s arrest is not to be considered
by you as any evidence of guilt.” Id. at 115. Preliminary Instruction No. 7
advised the jury that Tools was presumed innocent, and he was not required to
prove his innocence or to prove or explain anything. Id. at 116. Preliminary
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 49A02-1512-CR-2073 | September 30, 2016 Page 14 of 22
Instruction No. 8 read, “The burden is upon the State to prove beyond a
reasonable doubt that the Defendant is guilty of the crimes charged. It is a strict
and heavy burden.” Id. at 117. It also said, “A Defendant must not be
convicted on suspicion or speculation[,]” and “The State must prove each
element of the crimes by evidence that firmly convinces each of you and leaves
no reasonable doubt. The proof must be so convincing that you can rely and
act upon it in a matter of the highest importance.” Id. Final Jury Instruction
No. 1 advised the jury to consider the preliminary instructions along with the
final instructions to arrive at a verdict. Id. at 124.
[22] Here, there was no issue of identification, and Tools’s conviction was supported
by direct and not circumstantial evidence. N.N., who had lived with Tools for
more than five years, testified that, on the night in question, she was packing up
Tools’s belongings when he entered the apartment. Tr. at 94-95. Tools was
angry and ended up grabbing N.N. by the hair and punching her head and face
with a closed fist, causing N.N. extreme pain. Id. at 96-97. N.N.’s mother,
Joyce, was also in the apartment and tried to push Tools off of N.N., without
success. Id. at 97. N.N. testified that, after Joyce left to get her car, Tools
pulled N.N. to the floor, leaned over her, and would not let her get up. Id. at
105. Joyce testified that she was in the apartment with N.N. as N.N. was
packing up Tools’s belongings, when Tools arrived at the apartment and joined
N.N. upstairs. Id. at 139. Joyce, who was worried about N.N., waited on the
stairs. Upon hearing a crash, Joyce ran upstairs and saw Tools “drop[] a whole
bunch of stuff on [N.N.’s] head”; Tools grabbed the “back of [N.N.’s] head
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 49A02-1512-CR-2073 | September 30, 2016 Page 15 of 22
with her hair and he was punching her up.” Id. at 141. We conclude that
Tools’s conviction is clearly supported by the evidence, and the jury could not
properly have found otherwise. Based on the totality of the circumstances, we
conclude that the trial court’s refusal to give Preliminary Instruction No. 1, if
error, was harmless.
II. Double Jeopardy
[23] Tools claims that his convictions and accompanying sentences for Level 6
felony battery resulting in moderate bodily injury and Class A misdemeanor
domestic battery violate Indiana’s double jeopardy principles because the basis
for both battery charges, and resultant injuries, arose from the same act of
hitting N.N. Our court reviews de novo whether a defendant’s convictions
violate double jeopardy principles. Sloan v. State, 947 N.E.2d 917, 920 (Ind.
2011).
[24] The Double Jeopardy Clause found in Article 1, Section 14 of the Indiana
Constitution provides, “No person shall be put in jeopardy twice for the same
offense.” We analyze alleged violations of Indiana’s Double Jeopardy Clause
pursuant to Richardson v. State, 717 N.E.2d 32 (Ind. 1999). In Richardson, our
Supreme Court held that “two or more offenses are the ‘same offense’ in
violation of Article 1, 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
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 49A02-1512-CR-2073 | September 30, 2016 Page 16 of 22
the essential elements of another challenged offense.” Richardson, 717 N.E.2d
at 49 (emphasis in original).
[25] Under the “actual evidence” test, a defendant must demonstrate a reasonable
possibility that the evidentiary facts used by the jury to establish the essential
elements of one offense may also have been used to establish all of the essential
elements of a second challenged offense. Hines v. State, 30 N.E.3d 1216, 1222
(Ind. 2015) (citing Richardson, 717 N.E.2d at 53). The term “reasonable
possibility” “turns on a practical assessment of whether the jury may have
latched on to exactly the same facts for both convictions.” Lee v. State, 892
N.E.2d 1231, 1236 (Ind. 2008). The fact that the same evidence may have been
used to establish a single element of each of two offenses, however, does not
constitute a double jeopardy violation. Hines, 30 N.E.3d at 1221 (citing Spivey
v. State, 761 N.E.2d 831, 833 (Ind. 2002)).
[26] Application of this test requires the court to: (1) identify the essential elements
of each of the challenged crimes; and (2) evaluate the evidence from the
perspective of the finder of fact. Newgent v. State, 897 N.E.2d 520, 525 (Ind. Ct.
App. 2008) (quoting Lee, 892 N.E.2d at 1234) (quotation marks omitted). In
determining the facts used by the jury to establish the elements of each offense,
it is appropriate to consider the charging information, jury instructions, and
arguments of counsel. Id.
[27] In the count for battery resulting in moderate bodily injury, the State charged
that Tools “did knowingly or intentionally touch [N.N.] in a rude, insolent, or
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 49A02-1512-CR-2073 | September 30, 2016 Page 17 of 22
angry manner, resulting in moderate bodily injury to the other person,
specifically swelling and/or lacerations resulting in substantial pain to [N.N.]”
Appellant’s App. at 77. In the domestic battery count, the State charged that
Tools did knowingly touch N.N. (with whom Tools had a child in common)
“in a rude, insolent, or angry manner, to wit: struck and beat [N.N.] and
grabbed her by the hair and pulled her hair, and further said touching resulting
in bodily injury to the other person, specifically swelling and/or lacerations
and/or pain.” Id. at 78. The State agrees that the two counts charge the same
conduct and that the evidence, instructions, and the prosecutors’ argument do
not support two separate convictions. Appellee’s Br. at 17. Accordingly, we
remand this case and instruct the trial court to vacate Tools’s conviction for
Class A misdemeanor domestic battery.
III. Sentencing Order
[28] Tools contends that this case should be remanded to the trial court with
instructions to correct his sentencing order, and he highlights three errors.
First, he argues that the trial court’s act of merging his Class A misdemeanor
battery resulting in bodily injury into his Class A misdemeanor domestic battery
did not resolve the violation of double jeopardy protections. Second, he
maintains that the trial court erred when it did not use his habitual offender
finding to enhance a specific felony, but instead, imposed a two and one-half
year sentence and ordered that it run consecutively to his other concurrent
sentences. Third, he contends that the sentencing order “needs to be corrected
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 49A02-1512-CR-2073 | September 30, 2016 Page 18 of 22
to accurately reflect the charges for which the jury found Tools guilty.”
Appellant’s App. at 17.
A. Merging versus Vacating
[29] Tools contends that the trial court’s act of merging the conviction for Count IV,
Class A misdemeanor battery resulting in bodily injury, into his conviction for
Count III, Class A misdemeanor domestic battery, was insufficient to remedy
the violation of double jeopardy protections. “[U]se of the same evidence to
convict a person of multiple crimes is a violation of the double jeopardy
prohibition.” Steele v. State, 42 N.E.3d 138, 145 (Ind. Ct. App. 2015) (citing
Richardson, 717 N.E.2d at 49 (defining double jeopardy under Indiana
Constitution)).
If a trial court has entered multiple convictions based on the
same evidence, then the trial court’s act of merging, without also
vacating, the convictions is not sufficient. Indeed, a double
jeopardy violation occurs when judgments of conviction are entered and
cannot be remedied by the practical effect of concurrent
sentences or by merger after conviction has been entered.
Id. (quoting Payton v. State, 818 N.E.2d 493, 497 (Ind. Ct. App. 2004))
(emphasis added) (internal quotation marks omitted). “However, double
jeopardy is not implicated when a defendant is found guilty of multiple counts
that are merged into a single conviction.” Id. (citing Green v. State, 856 N.E.2d
703, 704 (Ind. 2006) (“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”)). Here, the status of the convictions is
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 49A02-1512-CR-2073 | September 30, 2016 Page 19 of 22
unclear. The sentencing order improperly sets forth that Tools pleaded guilty to
Class A misdemeanor battery resulting in bodily injury when, in fact, he was
found guilty of that count. Additionally, the sentencing order improperly sets
forth that Tools’s conviction for domestic battery was merged, when it was the
battery resulting in bodily injury that merged into the domestic battery.
Accordingly, we remand to the trial court with instructions to amend the
sentencing order to correctly reflect the charges and convictions and, if required
to comply with our court’s reasoning in Steele, vacate Tools’s conviction for
Class A misdemeanor battery resulting in bodily injury.
B. Habitual Offender Sentence
[30] Tools next argues that the trial court erred when it did not attach his habitual
offender finding to a specific felony as a sentence enhancement, but instead,
imposed a two and one-half year sentence and ordered that it run consecutively
to his other concurrent sentences. We agree.
[31] Indiana Code section 35-50-2-8(j) in part provides:
Habitual offender is a status that results in an enhanced sentence.
It is not a separate crime and does not result in a consecutive
sentence. The court shall attach the habitual offender
enhancement to the felony conviction with the highest sentence
imposed and specify which felony count is being enhanced.
During the sentencing hearing, the trial court referred to the term “habitual
offender enhancement.” Tr. at 293. While apparently recognizing that being a
habitual offender is an enhancement and not a separate offense, the trial court
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 49A02-1512-CR-2073 | September 30, 2016 Page 20 of 22
did not attach the habitual offender enhancement to a felony conviction. Id.Tools argues that the trial court erred when it imposed a separate two and one-
half year sentence on the habitual offender finding and ordered that sentence to
be served consecutive to the concurrent sentences for Tools’s convictions. The
State agrees. Appellee’s Br. at 17-18.
[32] Because the trial court entered a separate sentence on Tools’s habitual offender
determination, we remand to the trial court with instructions to correct the
sentencing order, abstract of judgment, and chronological case summary to (1)
reflect that Tools pleaded guilty to being a habitual offender, and (2) identify
which of Tools’s Level 6 felony sentences will be enhanced by two and one-half
years on the basis of the habitual offender adjudication.
C. Sentencing Order
[33] Finally, Tools seeks that this case be remanded to the trial court with
instructions to amend the sentencing order to accurately reflect the charges for
which the jury found Tools guilty. Appellant’s App. at 17. We agree. In
addition to the errors discussed above, the sentencing order improperly
indicates: (1) that Tools was found guilty of intimidation, a charge that was
dismissed prior to trial; and (2) that Tools’s domestic battery conviction was a
Level 6 felony, when the State tried him for domestic battery as a Class A
misdemeanor.
[34] We affirm Tools’s convictions for Level 6 felony battery resulting in moderate
bodily injury and Level 6 felony criminal confinement, vacate his conviction for
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 49A02-1512-CR-2073 | September 30, 2016 Page 21 of 22
domestic battery on the basis of double jeopardy concerns, and remand to the
trial court with instructions to amend the sentencing order, abstract of
judgment, and chronological case to accurately reflect Tools’s convictions and
sentence.
[35] Affirmed in part, vacated in part, and remanded with instructions.
[36] Riley, J., and Pyle, J., concur.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 49A02-1512-CR-2073 | September 30, 2016 Page 22 of 22