Ricky Levale Johnson v. State of Indiana (mem. dec.) ( 2021 )

MEMORANDUM DECISION
Pursuant to Ind. Appellate Rule 65(D),
this Memorandum Decision shall not be FILED
regarded as precedent or cited before any Jan 19 2021, 8:34 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
Steven Knecht Theodore E. Rokita
Vonderheide & Knecht, P.C. Attorney General of Indiana
Lafayette, Indiana
Ellen H. Meilaender
Supervising Deputy Attorney
General
Indianapolis, Indiana
IN THE
COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA
Ricky Levale Johnson, January 19, 2021
Appellant-Defendant, Court of Appeals Case No.
20A-CR-1150
v. Appeal from the Tippecanoe
Circuit Court
State of Indiana, The Honorable Sean M. Persin,
Appellee-Plaintiff. Judge
Trial Court Cause No.
79C01-1901-F2-4
Baker, Senior Judge.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 20A-CR-1150 | January 19, 2021 Page 1 of 11
Statement of the Case
[1] Community corrections officers found a handgun during a search of
probationer Ricky Levale Johnson’s home, and a subsequent search by police
officers also uncovered controlled substances. Johnson appeals his convictions
1
of unlawful possession of a firearm by a serious violent felon, a Level 4 felony;
2
possession of a narcotic drug, a Level 5 felony; maintaining a common
3
nuisance, a Level 6 felony; and possession of marijuana, a Class B
4
misdemeanor. We affirm.
Issue
[2] Johnson raises one issue, which we restate as: whether the trial court erred in
denying Johnson’s motion for mistrial, in which he alleged the State had failed
to timely disclose exculpatory evidence.
Facts and Procedural History
[3] In January 2019, Johnson lived in an apartment with his then-wife, Michelle
5
Reagan, and her young son. Reagan’s name was on the lease. Johnson and
1
Ind. Code § 35-47-4-5 (2018).
2
Ind. Code § 35-48-4-6 (2014).
3
Ind. Code § 35-45-1-5 (2018).
4
Ind. Code § 35-48-4-11 (2018).
5
At trial, Reagan spelled her last name as set forth above. During a pretrial deposition, she spelled her last
name as “Reagin.” Appellant’s App. Vol. II, p. 149. We use the spelling she provided at trial.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 20A-CR-1150 | January 19, 2021 Page 2 of 11
Reagan shared the master bedroom, and Reagan’s son slept in the other
bedroom.
[4] Johnson was on home detention and subject to supervision by Tippecanoe
County Community Corrections (“TCCC”). He had agreed to comply with
numerous conditions when he was placed on home detention, including: (1)
refraining from consuming alcohol; (2) submitting to drug and alcohol tests on
request; (3) refraining from possessing dangerous or deadly weapons; (4)
wearing a GPS monitoring device; and (5) waiving his right to object to
searches of his residence. Reagan, as the lessor, had also signed a consent form
permitting TCCC officers to search the apartment. She owned a handgun, but
she did not keep it at the apartment.
[5] On January 17, 2019, Reagan left the apartment after an argument with
Johnson. She did not return home that day or the next. Instead, she called 911,
reporting that Johnson had violated the terms of his home detention placement
and asking that he be removed from the apartment. Specifically, she reported
Johnson possessed a gun and alcohol.
[6] On January 19, TCCC Officers Clinton Delph and James Knogge arrived at
Johnson’s home to investigate Reagan’s report. Johnson allowed the officers to
enter. He submitted to a portable breath test and tested positive for alcohol,
after which he admitted to drinking alcohol. Next, the officers asked Johnson
“if there was anything else in the home that would get him in trouble.” Tr. Vol.
3, p. 17. He was “somewhat evasive” and would not “confirm or deny”
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 20A-CR-1150 | January 19, 2021 Page 3 of 11
whether there was anything else in the residence that would violate the
conditions of his home detention placement. Id.[7] The officers spotted a bottle of alcohol in the kitchen. Next, Knogge performed
a safety sweep of the residence, looking for potentially dangerous items, while
Delph and Johnson remained in the living room. Knogge went upstairs and
entered “the main bedroom,” id. at 18, where he smelled an odor of marijuana
and saw a handgun, a wallet, and “a lot of cash” on the bed. Id. The wallet
contained Johnson’s identification. The charging device for Johnson’s GPS
unit was also in the room.
[8] After finishing the sweep, Delph handcuffed Johnson. Next, Knogge read
Johnson his Miranda rights, and the officers questioned him. He said there was
approximately $1,000 in cash on the bed, but when asked about the handgun,
he claimed Reagan had a “personal protection license.” Id. at 19.
[9] Delph and Knogge called the Lafayette Police Department (“LPD”). Officer
John Dale and two other officers arrived to search the apartment in more detail.
Officer Dale searched the main bedroom, where he found a bag of syringes and
a grinder that contained marijuana residue. Another officer assisting Dale
found two bags of marijuana and two types of pills in the main bedroom.
Subsequent testing revealed that some of the pills contained amphetamine.
[10] Officer Dale transported Johnson to jail. During the booking process, jail staff
searched Johnson and discovered on his person a baggie containing brown
powdery material. Officer Dale believed the material was a controlled
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 20A-CR-1150 | January 19, 2021 Page 4 of 11
substance and took it to the police department. Subsequent testing revealed the
brown powdery substance consisted of 8.51 grams of heroin.
[11] On January 24, 2019, the State charged Johnson with dealing in a narcotic drug
(heroin), a Level 2 felony; possession of a narcotic drug (heroin) with a gun, a
Level 3 felony; possession of a controlled substance (amphetamine) with a gun,
a Level 6 felony; possession of marijuana, a Class B misdemeanor; maintaining
a common nuisance, a Level 6 felony; unlawful possession of a firearm by a
serious violent felon, a Level 4 felony; and possession of a syringe, a Level 6
felony.
[12] On July 24, 2019, the trial court granted the State permission to amend the
charging information, resulting in the following revised list of charges:
Count Offense Level of Offense
I dealing in a narcotic Level 2 felony
drug (heroin) with a gun
II dealing in a narcotic Level 3 felony
drug (heroin)
III possession of a narcotic Level 4 felony
drug (heroin) and a gun
IV possession of a narcotic Level 5 felony
drug (heroin)
V possession of a Level 6 felony
controlled substance
(amphetamine) and a
gun
VI possession of marijuana Class B misdemeanor
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 20A-CR-1150 | January 19, 2021 Page 5 of 11
VII maintaining a common Level 6 felony
nuisance
VIII unlawful possession of a Level 6 felony
syringe
IX unlawful possession of a Level 4 felony
firearm by a serious
violent felon
[13] Prior to trial, Johnson admitted that he had a predicate felony conviction for
purposes of the charge of unlawful possession of a handgun by a serious violent
felon. The trial court presided over a jury trial on December 10, 11, and 12,
2019. Johnson testified, claiming he was unaware of the controlled substances,
paraphernalia, and handgun that the officers found in the master bedroom
because he had been sleeping in another room. He further claimed someone
had planted the heroin on him prior to the search at the jail.
[14] The jury was unable to reach a verdict on the two charges of dealing in
controlled substances, and the trial court declared a mistrial as to those charges.
The jury determined Johnson was not guilty of Count V, possession of a
controlled substance (amphetamine) with a gun, and Count VIII, unlawful
possession of a syringe. The jury determined Johnson was guilty of the
remaining five charges.
[15] Next, the State moved to dismiss the dealing charges, and the trial court granted
the motion. On February 25, 2020, prior to sentencing, Johnson filed a motion
for mistrial, requesting a new trial. He claimed the State had failed to disclose
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 20A-CR-1150 | January 19, 2021 Page 6 of 11
prior to trial that Reagan was under investigation for allegedly dealing in
heroin, and that timely disclosure of that information would have changed the
outcome of his trial.
[16] On May 15, 2020, the trial court held a sentencing hearing, during which it
received evidence in relation to Johnson’s motion for mistrial and denied the
motion. Next, the court declined to enter judgment on Count III, possession of
a narcotic drug (heroin) and a gun as a Level 4 felony, based on double
jeopardy concerns. The court imposed sentences on the four remaining guilty
verdicts: possession of a firearm by a serious violent felon, a Level 4 felony;
possession of a narcotic drug (heroin), a Level 5 felony; maintaining a common
nuisance, a Level 6 felony; and possession of marijuana, a Class B
misdemeanor. This appeal followed.
Discussion and Decision
[17] Johnson argues the trial court should have granted his post-trial request for a
new trial because the State failed to timely disclose material evidence,
specifically that Reagan was under investigation for dealing in heroin when she
testified at his trial. In general, we review a motion for mistrial for an abuse of
discretion. Dorelle-Moore v. State, 968 N.E.2d 287, 289 (Ind. Ct. App. 2012).
But Johnson alleges a violation of his right to due process, and we apply a de
novo standard of review to constitutional claims. See Speers v. State, 999 N.E.2d
850, 852 (Ind. 2013) (applying de novo review to Speers’ claim of a
constitutional violation in the admission of evidence).
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 20A-CR-1150 | January 19, 2021 Page 7 of 11
[18] In Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83, 87, 83 S. Ct. 1194, 1196-97, 10 L. Ed. 2d 215(1963), the United States Supreme Court determined, “[w]e now hold that the
suppression by the prosecution of evidence favorable to the accused upon
request violates due process where the evidence is material either to guilt or to
punishment, irrespective of the good faith or bad faith of the prosecution.” The
Court later clarified that the prosecution’s duty to disclose applies “even though
there has been no request by the accused,” and “the duty encompasses
impeachment evidence as well as exculpatory evidence.” Strickler v. Greene, 527
U.S. 263, 280, 119 S. Ct. 1936, 1948, 144 L. Ed. 2d 286 (1999).
[19] There are three elements of a Brady violation: (1) the evidence at issue must be
favorable to the accused; (2) the evidence must have been suppressed by the
State, either willfully or inadvertently; and (3) the suppressed evidence is
material to the case. Davis-Martin v. State, 116 N.E.3d 1178, 1189 (Ind. Ct.
App. 2019), trans. denied. We resolve Johnson’s claim on the question of
6
materiality. Evidence is material to a case “only if there is a reasonable
probability that, had the evidence been disclosed to the defense, the result of the
proceeding would have been different.” U.S. v. Bagley, 473 U.S. 667, 682, 105
S. Ct. 3375, 3383, 87 L. Ed. 2d 481 (1985). A reasonable probability is a
probability sufficient to undermine confidence in the outcome. Id.6
The State argues that the prosecutor did not suppress evidence for purposes of the Brady analysis. We do
not need to address this argument.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 20A-CR-1150 | January 19, 2021 Page 8 of 11
[20] The evidence presented at the sentencing hearing in relation to Johnson’s
motion demonstrates that, in July 2019, prior to Johnson’s trial, officers with
the LPD had supervised a confidential informant who had allegedly purchased
heroin from Reagan. No charges were filed against Reagan until after
Johnson’s trial. Further, Johnson points to no evidence that Reagan was aware
she was under criminal investigation when she testified at his trial.
[21] Johnson claims that if the prosecutor had disclosed prior to trial that Reagan
was under investigation for dealing in heroin, he could have impeached her
with that information, thereby supporting his defense that the contraband found
in his apartment did not belong to him. We must weigh the value of the
undisclosed evidence in the context of all the evidence presented at trial to
determine whether the nondisclosure undermined confidence in the jury’s
verdict.
[22] There is substantial evidence of Johnson’s guilt, even if one does not consider
Reagan’s testimony. Two days after Reagan left the apartment she shared with
Johnson, a TCCC officer searching the apartment spotted a handgun in plain
sight on Johnson’s bed, along with Johnson’s wallet and a quantity of cash.
The officer also smelled marijuana in the bedroom, where Johnson kept the
charging unit for his monitoring device. Under questioning by the officers,
Johnson indicated he was aware of the money, and he did not express surprise
at the presence of the handgun, indicating only that Reagan had a gun license.
Further, an LPD officer later found marijuana in the bedroom. Finally, jail
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 20A-CR-1150 | January 19, 2021 Page 9 of 11
officers found heroin on Johnson’s person during a search. Johnson is not
challenging the sufficiency of the evidence supporting his convictions.
[23] Reagan testified at trial and in a deposition prior to trial that she had no
knowledge of any controlled substances in the apartment and did not keep her
handgun there. Any impeachment value that may be ascribed to the evidence
that she allegedly sold heroin in July 2019 is outweighed by the following
circumstances: (1) the jury acquitted Johnson of both charges of dealing in
controlled substances and convicted him of only possession offenses, rendering
Reagan’s alleged dealing in heroin less relevant to the case; (2) the heroin which
the jury convicted Johnson of possessing was found on his person, not hidden
in the apartment; and (3) the controlled buy in which Reagan was allegedly
involved occurred over six months after officers searched Johnson’s apartment.
There is no evidence that the police were investigating Reagan for dealing in or
possessing controlled substances in January 2019.
[24] In light of all the evidence presented at trial, we conclude Johnson has failed to
establish that, if the State had disclosed to Johnson prior to trial that Reagan
had been under investigation for dealing in heroin in July 2019, there is a
reasonable probability that the outcome of the trial would have been different.
See Carroll v. State, 740 N.E.2d 1225, 1230 (Ind. Ct. App. 2000) (State’s failure
to disclose witness’s misdemeanor conviction was not a Brady violation; in the
context of all the evidence presented at trial, the conviction was not material
evidence); trans. denied.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 20A-CR-1150 | January 19, 2021 Page 10 of 11
Conclusion
[25] For the reasons stated above, we affirm the judgment of the trial court.
[26] Affirmed.
Najam, J., and Crone, J., concur.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 20A-CR-1150 | January 19, 2021 Page 11 of 11