Lemere Joseph Jones v. State of Indiana (mem. dec.) ( 2020 )


Menu:
  • MEMORANDUM DECISION
    Pursuant to Ind. Appellate Rule 65(D),
    this Memorandum Decision shall not be                                                  FILED
    regarded as precedent or cited before any                                          Dec 21 2020, 8:55 am
    court except for the purpose of establishing
    CLERK
    the defense of res judicata, collateral                                            Indiana Supreme Court
    Court of Appeals
    estoppel, or the law of the case.                                                       and Tax Court
    ATTORNEY FOR APPELLANT                                  ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE
    William T. Myers                                        Curtis T. Hill, Jr.
    Grant County Public Defender                            Attorney General of Indiana
    Marion, Indiana                                         Megan M. Smith
    Deputy Attorney General
    Indianapolis, Indiana
    IN THE
    COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA
    Lemere Joseph Jones,                                    December 21, 2020
    Appellant-Defendant,                                    Court of Appeals Case No.
    20A-CR-840
    v.                                              Appeal from the
    Grant Superior Court
    State of Indiana,                                       The Honorable
    Appellee-Plaintiff.                                     Jeffrey D. Todd, Judge
    Trial Court Cause No.
    27D01-1901-MR-3
    Kirsch, Judge.
    Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 20A-CR-840 | December 21, 2020            Page 1 of 7
    [1]   After being tried at a bench trial, Lemere Joseph Jones (“Jones”) was convicted
    of three counts of murder,1 and one count of conspiracy to commit armed
    robbery2 as a Level 3 felony. The trial court sentenced Jones to sixty-five years
    for each of the three murder counts to run consecutive with each other and
    fifteen years for conspiracy to commit armed robbery to run concurrent to the
    murder counts, for an aggregate sentence of 195 years executed. Jones appeals
    his sentence, arguing that the trial court abused its discretion in imposing
    consecutive sentences because he alleges that the trial court failed to state
    reasons for the consecutive sentences.
    [2]   We affirm.
    Facts and Procedural History
    [3]   Jones and his friends Demetrius Jackson (“Jackson”), Jasmine Drake
    (“Jasmine”), and Brittany Drake (“Brittany”), believed that Javon Blackwell
    (“Javon”) was a drug dealer and that he would have drugs and money stashed
    in his residence. Supp. Tr. at 137; State’s Ex. 123 at 156-57. The four of them
    devised a plan to rob Javon. Supp. Tr. at 84, 137-38; State’s Ex. 123 at 156-57.
    On December 30, 2018, Jones and Jackson met Brittany and Jasmine at
    Jasmine’s home just a block away from Javon’s residence. Supp. Tr. at 132-33,
    137; State’s Ex. 119-21, 123 at 157. They drove over to Javon’s house, and
    1
    See Ind. Code § 35-42-1-1.
    2
    See Ind. Code §§ 35-42-5-1(a), 35-41-5-2.
    Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 20A-CR-840 | December 21, 2020   Page 2 of 7
    Jasmine dropped off Brittany and Jackson at the rear of Javon’s house. Supp.
    Tr. at 138; State’s Ex. 123 at 157, 170. Brittany was supposed to serve as a look-
    out in the alley behind Javon’s house. State’s Ex. 123 at 157. Jasmine drove
    around to the front of Javon’s residence and parked so Jones could go to the
    front door. Supp. Tr. at 138; State’s Ex. 123 at 157.
    [4]   Jones knocked on the front door and was let into the house by Javon. Supp. Tr.
    at 138; State’s Ex. 123 at 157, 170. Jones asked for a glass of water and went to
    the kitchen, where he unlocked the door to allow Jackson in through the back
    door. Supp. Tr. at 138; State’s Ex. 123 at 157, 170-71. Jackson entered and
    opened fire killing Javon and his two sons, 12-year-old J.B.1 and 11-year-old
    J.B.2, who were present at the home. Supp. Tr. at 25-26, 123-26, 138; State’s Ex.
    123 at 157, 170-71. Jones stole an “assault-style rifle,” a handgun, and a
    Michael Kors bag before fleeing Javon’s residence. Supp. Tr. at 84, 101-02, 138-
    39; State’s Ex. 123 at 157. Afterwards, Jones and Jasmine returned to Jasmine’s
    residence and burned their clothes in a burn barrel in the backyard. Supp. Tr. at
    139; State’s Ex. 123 at 175. Jones also cut off his dreadlocks. Supp. Tr. at 139;
    State’s Ex. 113-15, 123 at 180.
    [5]   Javon’s mother arrived at his residence around 1:00 p.m. to pick up J.B.1 and
    J.B.2. Supp. Tr. at 27-28. When she entered the residence, it was dark inside,
    and she noticed Javon on the couch and J.B.1 and J.B.2 huddled together in the
    chair in the living room.
    Id. at 29-30, 98.
    She thought that they were asleep, so
    she attempted to wake them up.
    Id. at 29.
    A handyman who had arrived to
    work on Javon’s bathroom entered the living room and turned on the lights.
    Id. Court of Appeals
    of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 20A-CR-840 | December 21, 2020   Page 3 of 7
    Javon’s mother noticed the boys were not breathing and called 911.
    Id. at 29- 30. [6]
      Jones was later arrested, and on January 28, 2019, the State charged him with
    three counts of felony murder, armed robbery, and conspiracy to commit armed
    robbery.
    Id. at 93;
    Appellant’s App. Vol. 2 at 7-10, 20. Jones was tried in a bench
    trial, and the trial court found him guilty on all charges but vacated the armed
    robbery conviction due to double-jeopardy concerns. Tr. Vol. 2 at 20; Supp. Tr.
    at 158; Appellant’s App. Vol. 2 at 46-47. At the sentencing hearing, the trial court
    found as aggravating factors Jones’s criminal history and the fact that prior
    attempts at rehabilitation had failed, one of the murders was committed in the
    presence of children, one of the victims was less than twelve years old, and
    Jones was on parole at the time he committed the present crimes. Tr. Vol. 2 at
    20; Appellant’s App. Vol. 2 at 46-47. The trial court found no mitigating factors.
    Tr. Vol. 2 at 20; Appellant’s App. Vol. 2 at 47. The trial court imposed
    consecutive sentences of sixty-five years each on the three murder convictions
    and a concurrent sentence of fifteen years on the conspiracy to commit armed
    robbery conviction, which resulted in an aggregate sentence of 195 years
    executed. Tr. Vol. 2 at 21; Appellant’s App. Vol. 2 at 47. Jones now appeals.
    Discussion and Decision
    [7]   Sentencing determinations are within the trial court’s discretion and will be
    reversed only for an abuse of discretion. Harris v. State, 
    964 N.E.2d 920
    , 926
    (Ind. Ct. App. 2012), trans. denied. An abuse of discretion occurs if the decision
    Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 20A-CR-840 | December 21, 2020   Page 4 of 7
    is “clearly against the logic and effect of the facts and circumstances before the
    court, or the reasonable, probable, and actual deductions to be drawn
    therefrom.” Gross v. State, 
    22 N.E.3d 863
    , 869 (Ind. Ct. App. 2014), trans.
    denied. A trial court abuses its discretion if it: (1) fails “to enter a sentencing
    statement at all”; (2) enters “a sentencing statement that explains reasons for
    imposing a sentence -- including a finding of aggravating and mitigating factors
    if any -- but the record does not support the reasons”; (3) enters a sentencing
    statement that “omits reasons that are clearly supported by the record and
    advanced for consideration”; or (4) considers reasons that “are improper as a
    matter of law.” Anglemyer v. State, 
    868 N.E.2d 482
    , 490-91 (Ind. 2007), clarified
    on reh’g, 
    875 N.E.2d 218
    (Ind. 2007). If the trial court has abused its discretion,
    we will remand for resentencing “if we cannot say with confidence that the trial
    court would have imposed the same sentence had it properly considered
    reasons that enjoy support in the record.”
    Id. at 491.
    The relative weight or
    value assignable to reasons properly found, or those which should have been
    found, is not subject to review for abuse of discretion.
    Id. The decision to
    impose consecutive sentences lies within the discretion of the trial court. 
    Gross, 22 N.E.3d at 869
    (citing Gilliam v. State, 
    901 N.E.2d 72
    , 74 (Ind. Ct. App.
    2009)). A trial court is required to state its reasons for imposing consecutive
    sentences or enhanced terms.
    Id. A single aggravating
    circumstance may be
    sufficient to support the imposition of consecutive sentences.
    Id. [8]
      Jones argues that the trial court abused its discretion in sentencing him by
    imposing consecutive sentences. Specifically, he contends that the trial court
    Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 20A-CR-840 | December 21, 2020   Page 5 of 7
    abused its discretion because, although it listed aggravating circumstances, it
    failed to articulate how it applied those circumstances to both enhance Jones’s
    sentence and to impose consecutive sentences. Jones, therefore, asserts that we
    should remand the case to the trial court to correct the deficiency.
    [9]   We disagree. The trial court found several aggravating circumstances that
    could support enhanced and consecutive sentences, and Jones does not
    challenge the validity of any of these aggravating circumstances. The evidence
    showed that Jones had a substantial criminal history and lesser, prior attempts
    at rehabilitation had failed, that one of the murders was committed in the
    presence of children, that one of the victims was less than twelve years old, and
    that Jones was on parole at the time he committed the present offenses. Tr. Vol.
    2 at 20; Appellant’s App. Vol. 2 at 46-47. A trial court may rely on the same
    factors to enhance a sentence and to impose consecutive sentences. Reed v.
    State, 
    856 N.E.2d 1189
    , 1199 (Ind. 2006); 
    Gilliam, 901 N.E.2d at 74
    .
    Additionally, the fact of multiple crimes or victims constitutes a valid
    aggravating circumstance that justifies consecutive sentences. McBride v. State,
    
    992 N.E.2d 912
    , 920 (Ind. Ct. App. 2013) (citing O’Connell v. State, 
    742 N.E.2d 943
    , 952 (Ind. 2001)), trans. denied. Here, the trial court found multiple valid
    aggravating circumstances to support enhancing Jones’s sentence, and his
    crimes involved multiple victims. These aggravating circumstances were
    sufficient to both enhance his sentence and to justify consecutive sentences.
    We, therefore, conclude that the trial court did not abuse its discretion when it
    imposed enhanced, consecutive sentences.
    Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 20A-CR-840 | December 21, 2020   Page 6 of 7
    [10]   Affirmed.
    Bradford, C.J., and May, J., concur.
    Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 20A-CR-840 | December 21, 2020   Page 7 of 7
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 20A-CR-840

Filed Date: 12/21/2020

Precedential Status: Precedential

Modified Date: 12/21/2020