Anthony Eugene Fields v. State of Indiana ( 2013 )


Menu:
  • Pursuant to Ind. Appellate Rule 65(D), this
    Memorandum Decision shall not be
    regarded as precedent or cited before any
    court except for the purpose of                     Dec 31 2013, 9:40 am
    establishing the defense of res judicata,
    collateral estoppel, or the law of the case.
    ATTORNEY FOR APPELLANT:                         ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE:
    JUNE E. BULES                                   GREGORY F. ZOELLER
    Plymouth, Indiana                               Attorney General of Indiana
    JODI KATHRYN STEIN
    Deputy Attorney General
    Indianapolis, Indiana
    IN THE
    COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA
    ANTHONY EUGENE FIELDS,                          )
    )
    Appellant-Defendant,                     )
    )
    vs.                               )       No. 50A05-1304-CR-186
    )
    STATE OF INDIANA,                               )
    )
    Appellee-Plaintiff.                      )
    APPEAL FROM THE MARSHALL SUPERIOR COURT
    The Honorable Robert O. Bowen, Judge
    Cause No. 50D01-1206-FB-34
    December 31, 2013
    MEMORANDUM DECISION – NOT FOR PUBLICATION
    BAKER, Judge
    In this case, after appellant-defendant Anthony Eugene Fields had violated the
    terms of his probation, his probation officer, accompanied by two Indiana State Police
    (ISP) Troopers and another probation officer, conducted a home visit and found evidence
    that Fields was manufacturing methamphetamine. Fields was subsequently convicted of
    Dealing in Methamphetamine,1 a class B felony; Possession of Methamphetamine,2 a
    class D felony; Possession of Precursors with Intent to Manufacture,3 a class D felony;
    Maintaining a Common Nuisance,4 a class D felony; and Possession of Paraphernalia,5 a
    class A misdemeanor.
    Fields now appeals his convictions and twenty-year sentence, arguing that the trial
    court erred by denying his motion to exclude a lab report and his motion for a
    continuance and that he was denied effective assistance of trial counsel. Fields also
    requests that this Court revise his sentence claiming that it is inappropriate in light of the
    nature of the offenses and his character.                    Finding no error and declining Fields’s
    invitation to revise his sentence, we affirm the judgment of the trial court.
    FACTS
    On June 14, 2012, James Bendy, a probation officer in Marshall County,
    conducted a home visit at Fields’s residence in Plymouth. Fields had missed probation
    1
    
    Ind. Code § 35-48-4-1
    .1.
    2
    I.C. § 35-48-4-6.1.
    3
    I.C. § 35-48-4-14.5.
    4
    I.C. § 35-48-4-13.
    5
    I.C. § 35-48-4-8.3(a)(1); I.C. § 35-48-4-8.3(b).
    2
    appointments, tested positive for drugs, and had purchased pseudoephedrine one day
    earlier. Two days before, Fields had attempted to purchase pseudoephedrine but was
    prevented from doing so because he had made a purchase on May 31, 2012.
    Additionally, the Indiana State Police (ISP) had received several complaints from
    Fields’s neighbors about methamphetamine manufacturing waste in the area.
    Bendy proceeded to Fields’s residence with ISP Trooper Andrew Cochran, who
    was a member of the methamphetamine suppression unit, ISP Trooper Gruett and
    Ricardo Fallon, a Marshall County probation officer. As the four approached Fields’s
    residence, Bendy saw Jacob Belcher standing outside. Belcher was also on probation and
    neither Belcher nor Fields was supposed to be associating with other probationers. From
    Trooper Cochran’s vantage point, he saw Fields run from the driveway and around the
    backside of the residence.
    Bendy and Trooper Gruett approached Belcher and spoke with him as Trooper
    Cochran conducted an exterior safety sweep. Trooper Cochran immediately observed a
    fallen bottle of Liquid Fire in the grass and two fifty-pound bags of rock salt by the
    backdoor, one of which was open. Trooper Cochran observed several coffee filters
    throughout the yard, a bag of coffee filters in the side yard, and a large burn pile directly
    behind the residence. When Trooper Cochran looked into the shed for additional people,
    he observed a syringe, a cotton ball, two bottle caps, and a wet coffee filter with
    methamphetamine, all of which are indicative of methamphetamine use.                Trooper
    3
    Cochran called the drug task force for back up, and the probation home visit transformed
    into a police investigation.
    Back at the residence, Fields responded to Bendy’s knock at the front door. A
    subsequent search of the master bedroom revealed foil boats, which are used to smoke
    methamphetamine, foil strips, a roll of foil, and a butane torch. The master bathroom had
    pit marks or burn holes in the porcelain, which was consistent with the reaction from
    lithium batteries and water.
    Belcher was charged with visiting a common nuisance for his presence at Fields’s
    residence and was represented by Edward Ruiz.          Belcher pleaded guilty and was
    sentenced on July 6, 2012, only ten days after he was charged.
    On June 21, 2012, the State charged Fields with class B felony dealing in
    methamphetamine, class D felony possession of methamphetamine, class D felony
    possession of precursors with intent to manufacture, class D felony maintaining a
    common nuisance, and class A misdemeanor possession of paraphernalia. On July 3,
    Ruiz entered an appearance on Fields’s behalf.
    On October 16, 2012, Fields filed a motion to compel discovery within thirty days,
    which was granted.      The specific language of that order stated that the State was
    compelled to provide undisclosed discovery within thirty days “or said discovery may be
    subject to suppression.” Appellant’s App. p. 23.
    On December 20, 2012, Fields filed a motion to exclude evidence, and a hearing
    was held on January 9, 2013. Fields requested exclusion of a lab report, which he had
    4
    requested from the State but had not yet received. Fields did not allege any wrongdoing
    by the State, and the State assured the trial court that it would give a copy of the report to
    Fields as soon as the State received it. Consequently, the trial court denied Fields’s
    motion until the final pretrial conference.
    The lab report was issued on January 15, 2013, and given to Fields.               At a
    subsequent hearing on January 31st, the trial court denied Fields’s oral motion to
    continue the February 19, 2013 trial.
    At trial, before the presentation of evidence, the trial court noted for the record that
    Ruiz had represented Belcher and that Belcher was going to be a State’s witness and
    subject to cross-examination by Ruiz.
    Belcher later testified that he was present at Fields’s residence the day of the home
    visit. Belcher stated that although Fields was not manufacturing methamphetamine that
    day, Fields had done so before.         During Belcher’s direct testimony, Ruiz objected
    numerous times on the basis of Indiana Evidence Rule 404(b), which addresses the
    introduction of prior bad acts. During cross-examination, Ruiz questioned Belcher that
    because of the testimony that he was giving at Fields’s trial, he could possibly receive a
    more favorable sentence in a pending case. Ruiz also impeached Belcher with prior
    inconsistent statements.
    After the presentation of evidence and deliberations, the jury returned a verdict of
    guilty as charged. The trial court held a sentencing hearing on March 21, 2013. The trial
    court noted Fields’s criminal history including seven convictions, two of which were
    5
    drug-related. In addition, Fields had failed to successfully complete probation with four
    instances of unsuccessful termination, and Fields was on probation at the time of the
    instant offense. In mitigation, the trial court recognized that Fields has children to
    support. Concluding that the aggravating factors outweighed the mitigating factors, the
    trial court sentenced Fields to twenty years for class B felony dealing in
    methamphetamine, to concurrent three-year terms on each of the three class D felonies,
    and to a concurrent one-year term for class A misdemeanor possession of paraphernalia,
    for a total aggregate term of twenty years in the Department of Correction (DOC). Fields
    now appeals.
    DISCUSSION AND DECISION
    I. Denial of Fields’s Motions
    A. The Lab Report
    Fields contends that the trial court erred by denying his motion to exclude the lab
    report from evidence. Trial courts have broad latitude with respect to discovery matters,
    and their rulings receive great deference on appeal. Cain v. State, 
    955 N.E.2d 714
    , 718
    (Ind. 2011). Exclusion of evidence is appropriate only if the defendant shows “that the
    State’s actions were deliberate or otherwise reprehensible, and this conduct prevented the
    defendant from receiving a fair trial.” Warren v. State, 
    725 N.E.2d 828
    , 832 (Ind. 2000).
    In this case, the lab report was issued on January 15, 2013, and the State promptly
    gave the report to Fields. Appellant’s App. p. 6. Indeed, Fields admitted at the exclusion
    hearing that he was not alleging that the State had committed any wrongdoing or
    6
    impropriety. Tr. p. 4. Instead, Fields makes a general argument that he had “less than
    thirty (30) days” to prepare a defense and trial strategy. Appellant’s Br. p. 12. However,
    Fields had from January 17th until February 19th to incorporate the lab report into the
    evidence that he already possessed and complete his trial preparation. Consequently,
    Fields also cannot show that he was denied a fair trial. See Ware v. State, 
    859 N.E.2d 708
    , 724 (Ind. Ct. App. 2007) (finding no prejudice with respect to an alleged discovery
    violation where the defendant’s defense was not substantially affected and the evidence
    would not have assisted with any other line of defense). Thus, this argument fails.
    B. Motion for a Continuance
    In a related argument, Fields argues that the trial court erred by denying his
    motion to continue the trial, which he orally made on January 31, 2013, at the pretrial
    conference. As an initial matter, the State points out that Fields has failed to provide this
    Court with a transcript of that hearing to support this argument.                Indeed, it is the
    appellant’s duty to present this Court with an adequate record that clearly shows the
    alleged error, and where he fails to adequately do so, the issue is deemed waived. Davis
    v. State, 
    935 N.E.2d 1215
    , 1217 (Ind. Ct. App. 2010).
    Waiver notwithstanding, when a motion for a continuance is not based upon the
    statutory criteria in Indiana Code section 35-36-7-1,6 the trial court’s decision is given
    substantial deference and is reviewable only for an abuse of discretion. Laster v. State,
    
    956 N.E.2d 187
    , 192 (Ind. Ct. App. 2011). In order for a denial of a motion for a
    6
    Indiana Code section 35-36-7-1 criteria is based on the absence of evidence and the defendant’s due
    diligence in trying to obtain it.
    7
    continuance to be reversible error, the defendant must demonstrate that he was prejudiced
    by the denial. Macklin v. State, 
    701 N.E.2d 1247
    , 1250 (Ind. Ct. App. 1998).
    In this case, Fields requested a continuance several weeks before the trial and after
    the lab report had already been given to him. Under these circumstances, Fields has
    failed to show that he was prejudiced. Accordingly, this argument also fails.7
    II. Ineffective Assistance of Counsel
    Fields asserts that he received ineffective assistance of trial counsel because he
    represented Belcher, who was charged with visiting a common nuisance for his presence
    at Fields’s residence on June 14, 2012. In other words, Fields claims that his trial
    counsel’s assistance was impaired by a conflict of interest.
    To prevail on a conflict of interest claim, a defendant must show that trial counsel
    had an actual conflict of interest and that the conflict adversely effected counsel’s
    performance. Shepherd v. State, 
    924 N.E.2d 1274
    , 1287 (Ind. Ct. App. 2010). An
    adverse effect requires a showing that of:
    (1) a plausible strategy or tactic that was not followed but might have been
    pursued; and (2) an inconsistency between that strategy or tactic and
    counsel’s other loyalties, or that the alternate strategy or tactic was not
    undertaken due to the conflict.
    
    Id.
    7
    Fields vaguely references “field test results” that the State had not given to him during discovery.
    Appellant’s Br. p. 12-13. Those field test results were admitted throughout Trooper Cochran’s testimony
    and the State’s photographs, and Fields does not claim that this witness and these photographs were not
    given to him during discovery. Moreover, Fields did not object when the evidence was presented at trial
    and makes no claim of fundamental error on appeal. Thus, there is no issue for this Court to address with
    respect to this argument.
    8
    Here, during cross-examination, Belcher admitted to having another charge for
    visiting a common nuisance in LaPorte County of which he had not been convicted as of
    Fields’s trial. Tr. p. 69. Additionally, Belcher was on probation for theft and had a
    pending charge for theft in Marshall County. 
    Id.
     Belcher then testified that if you violate
    your probation, “you could go to prison” and that it was possible that he would get some
    consideration for his testimony against Fields. Id. at 69-70. Belcher further testified that
    he did not see Fields manufacturing methamphetamine on June 14, 2012. Id. at 71-72
    On redirect, Belcher testified that he had pleaded guilty to visiting a common
    nuisance, a charge arising from the same incident for which Fields was on trial. Id. at 72.
    Belcher stated that he was not promised anything in exchange for his guilty plea. Id. In
    light of this testimony, it appears that Fields has failed to show actual conflict, insofar as
    Belcher received no benefit from pleading guilty to visiting a common nuisance, which
    was the charge arising out of the same incident for which Fields was on trial. Moreover,
    any benefit Belcher received for his testimony was linked to unrelated charges and
    probation violations.
    But perhaps even more compelling, because ineffective assistance of appellate
    counsel was asserted on direct appeal, we do not have a post-conviction record regarding
    whether Fields’s attorney’s representation of Belcher on the charge of visiting a common
    nuisance resulted in an actual agreement that Belcher testify against Fields for some
    benefit. A post-conviction proceeding is the preferred forum because of the development
    9
    of new evidence not present in the trial record. Woods v State, 
    701 N.E.2d 1208
    , 1219
    (Ind. 1998). Rather, we only have Belcher’s trial testimony.
    Moreover, even assuming Fields had established an actual conflict of interest, he
    has failed to establish an adverse effect. More particularly, Belcher and Fields testified
    that methamphetamine was not manufactured on June 14, 2012, as alleged. Tr. p. 71,
    172. Furthermore, Ruiz cross-examined Belcher, impeached his credibility, and objected
    to the admission of evidence during Belcher’s direct examination. Tr. p. 60, 62, 64, 67.
    70-72. Thus, it is apparent from the record that a strategy was followed. Accordingly,
    Fields has failed to show that he received ineffective assistance of trial counsel.8
    III. Appellate Review of Sentence
    Finally, Fields argues that his twenty-year sentence is inappropriate in light of the
    nature of the offenses and his character and requests that this Court revise it pursuant to
    our authority under Indiana Appellate Rule 7(B). Upon reviewing the appropriateness of
    a sentence, we do not merely substitute our judgment for that of the trial court. Book v.
    State, 
    880 N.E.2d 1240
    , 1252 (Ind. Ct. App. 2008).                         Rather, after giving due
    consideration to the trial court’s decision, our principal role “should be to attempt to
    leaven the outliers . . . .” Cardwell v. State, 
    895 N.E.2d 1219
    , 1223, 1225 (Ind. 2008).
    The burden is on the defendant to persuade us that his sentence is inappropriate.
    Childress v. State, 
    848 N.E.2d 1073
    , 1080 (Ind. 2006).
    8
    Because Fields had raised a claim of ineffective assistance of trial counsel on direct appeal, he cannot do
    so on post-conviction review. Woods v State, 
    701 N.E.2d 1208
    , 1220 (Ind. 1998).
    10
    Here, Fields was sentenced on each of his five convictions. However, his terms
    were ordered to be served concurrently such that his aggregate term of imprisonment is
    twenty years, which is the term he was sentenced to for class B felony dealing in
    methamphetamine. Appellant’s App. p. 38.
    As for the nature of the offenses, Fields was convicted of class B felony dealing in
    methamphetamine, class D felony possession of methamphetamine, class D felony
    possession of precursors, class D felony maintaining a common nuisance, and class A
    misdemeanor possession of paraphernalia. From these convictions, it is evident that
    Fields is heavily involved in methamphetamine, the dangers of which are common
    knowledge.     Thus, the nature of the offenses does not assist Fields with his
    inappropriateness argument.
    Regarding Fields’s character, between 2003 and 2013, he has amassed seven
    criminal convictions, including four felony convictions and three misdemeanor
    convictions. Specifically, Fields has two drug-related felony convictions, namely, class
    D felony possession of marijuana and class D felony possession of methamphetamine.
    Appellant’s App. p. 44. Additionally, Fields has been convicted of class D felony fraud
    and class D felony theft. 
    Id. at 45
    . Fields has been placed on probation numerous times
    and has failed to successfully complete it even once. 
    Id. at 46
    . Indeed, Fields was on
    probation when he committed the instant offenses. 
    Id.
     It is apparent that Fields has a
    total disregard for the the rule of law and the criminal justice system. Consequently, his
    11
    twenty-year sentence is not inappropriate in light of the nature of the offenses and his
    character.
    The judgment of the trial court is affirmed.
    RILEY, J., and VAIDIK, J., concur.
    12
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 50A05-1304-CR-186

Filed Date: 12/31/2013

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 10/30/2014