Jose Miguel Tomas-Felipe v. State of Indiana (mem. dec.) ( 2017 )

FILED
MEMORANDUM DECISION 08/28/2017, 10:06 am
CLERK
Pursuant to Ind. Appellate Rule 65(D), this Indiana Supreme Court
Court of Appeals
Memorandum Decision shall not be regarded as and Tax Court
precedent or cited before any court except for the
purpose of establishing the defense of res judicata,
collateral estoppel, or the law of the case.
ATTORNEY FOR APPELLANT ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE
Mark K. Leeman Curtis T. Hill, Jr.
Leeman Law Office and Office of the Attorney General
Cass County Public Defender
Lyubov Gore
Logansport, Indiana
Deputy Attorney General
Indianapolis, Indiana
IN THE
COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA
Jose Miguel Tomas-Felipe, August 28, 2017
Appellant-Defendant, Court of Appeals Case No.
09A02-1703-CR-607
v. Appeal from the Cass Superior
Court.
The Honorable Richard Maughmer,
State of Indiana, Judge.
Appellee-Plaintiff. Trial Court Cause No.
09D02-1606-F1-3
Friedlander, Senior Judge
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 09A02-1703-CR-607 | August 28, 2017 Page 1 of 6
[1] Jose Miguel Tomas-Felipe appeals his convictions of attempted murder, a Level
1 2
1 felony, and burglary of a dwelling, a Level 4 felony, claiming the convictions
violate his protections against double jeopardy. We affirm.
[2] On June 18, 2016, Iris Cruz was asleep in her bed in Logansport, Indiana, with
her two-year old child next to her. She was awakened by a pain in her arm.
Cruz looked up and saw a man she did not know standing by her bed, stabbing
her with a sharp object. The man tried to stab or slash her neck, and she
blocked the blows with her hands and arms, causing pain and severe bleeding.
After they struggled for a short time, the man ran out of the house. Cruz
ensured that he had left, checked on her three children, and called 911. Her
hands were cut so badly that she had to try calling 911 three times before
succeeding. As Cruz waited for the police, she noticed a window in her home
was open. It had not been open when she went to sleep.
[3] Officers were dispatched to Cruz’s home. One officer saw a man, later
identified as Tomas-Felipe, running away from the home. Cruz came outside
and yelled for help. The officer stayed with her and secured the home until
medics arrived. Another officer chased Tomas-Felipe and subdued him.
Tomas-Felipe’s clothes and body were spotted with blood. Later, a crime scene
1
Ind. Code §§ 35-42-1-1 (2014), 35-41-5-1 (2014).
2
Ind. Code § 35-43-2-1 (2014).
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 09A02-1703-CR-607 | August 28, 2017 Page 2 of 6
technician found a large bloody knife in Cruz’s bed. The officers also found a
fingerprint on the open window.
[4] Doctors treated numerous cuts on Cruz’s hands and arms. She later underwent
surgeries to repair damaged tendons in her fingers. The injuries healed, but
Cruz has recurring nightmares about being attacked and bleeding to death.
[5] The State charged Tomas-Felipe with attempted murder; burglary of a dwelling
resulting in serious bodily injury, a Level 1 felony; and resisting law
enforcement, a Class A misdemeanor. He pleaded guilty as charged without a
plea agreement.
[6] At sentencing, the State asked the court to enter a judgment of conviction for
burglary as a Level 4 felony, “essentially removing the serious bodily injury
element.” Tr. Vol. II, p. 19. The State was concerned the charge of burglary of
a dwelling resulting in serious bodily injury “overlapp[ed] with the attempted
murder” charge. Id. The court agreed with the State that the “language of
serious bodily injury” in the burglary charge was “duplicitous to the allegation”
in the attempted murder charge. Id. at 22. The court entered judgment on the
burglary conviction as a Level 4 felony to “avoid two sentences for the same
crime.” Id. at 21. The court sentenced Tomas-Felipe to forty years for
attempted murder and twelve years for burglary of a dwelling, to be served
consecutively. The court further sentenced Tomas-Felipe to one year for
resisting law enforcement, to be served concurrently with the other sentences.
This appeal followed.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 09A02-1703-CR-607 | August 28, 2017 Page 3 of 6
[7] Before we turn to the merits of Tomas-Felipe’s double jeopardy claim, the State
argues he waived his right to present that claim because he pleaded guilty. In
general, a defendant who pleads guilty per an agreement with the State waives
the right to raise a double jeopardy claim on appeal. Mapp v. State, 770 N.E.2d
332 (Ind. 2001). When a defendant pleads guilty without a plea agreement,
there is no waiver. Kunberger v. State, 46 N.E.3d 966 (Ind. Ct. App. 2015).
[8] Tomas-Felipe pleaded guilty without an agreement and did not receive any
tangible benefit from the State. The State argues that he benefitted because the
court determined his guilty plea was a mitigating factor. The court’s
consideration of Tomas-Felipe’s guilty plea is of no consequence. The key for
purposes of waiver is whether a defendant gained a benefit from the State
through an agreement. See Wharton v. State, 42 N.E.3d 539 (Ind. Ct. App. 2015)
(no waiver of right to raise double jeopardy claim; defendant pleaded guilty
without an agreement). Tomas-Felipe has not waived his right to raise a double
jeopardy claim on appeal.
[9] Tomas-Felipe declines to present a claim under the double jeopardy clauses of
the Constitution of the United States of America or the Constitution of the State
of Indiana. Instead, he bases his double jeopardy claim on “Indiana’s common-
law rules,” arguing his burglary conviction must be vacated because it is based
in part on the same act as the attempted murder conviction. Appellant’s Br. p.
10.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 09A02-1703-CR-607 | August 28, 2017 Page 4 of 6
[10] In Pierce v. State, 761 N.E.2d 826, 830 (Ind. 2002), the Indiana Supreme Court
explained, “We have long adhered to a series of rules of statutory construction
and common law that are often described as double jeopardy, but are not
governed by the constitutional test set forth in Richardson [v. State, 717 N.E.2d
32 (Ind. 1999)].” For example, two crimes may not be enhanced by the same
bodily injury. Miller v. State, 790 N.E.2d 437 (Ind. 2003). In Gross v. State, 769
N.E.2d 1136 (Ind. 2002), the Indiana Supreme Court determined a conviction
of robbery resulting in serious bodily injury, a Class A felony, could not stand
because the same act of causing injury was an element of an accompanying
charge of murder. The Supreme Court remanded with instructions to reduce
the robbery conviction to a Class B felony, thereby removing the element of
serious bodily injury from the robbery charge and eliminating the double
jeopardy violation.
[11] In the current case, Tomas-Felipe argues his burglary conviction must be
vacated because the charges of attempted murder and burglary as a Level 1
felony are based on the same act: his stabbing of Cruz, resulting in serious
bodily injury. We reject his argument because the convictions, not the charges,
are the crucial factor for purposes of double jeopardy. Tomas-Felipe fails to
acknowledge that the trial court entered a judgment of conviction for burglary
as a Level 4 felony, not as a Level 1 felony. Burglary as a Level 4 felony does
not include an element of causing injury or serious bodily injury to a person.
See Ind. Code § 35-43-2-1. The trial court implemented the remedy required by
the Indiana Supreme Court in Gross, thus avoiding a violation of Indiana’s
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 09A02-1703-CR-607 | August 28, 2017 Page 5 of 6
common law double jeopardy principles. Tomas-Felipe has failed to
demonstrate that he was harmed by being convicted of burglary as a Level 4
felony.
[12] For the reasons stated above, we affirm the judgment of the trial court.
[13] Judgment affirmed.
[14] Mathias, J., and Crone, J., concur.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 09A02-1703-CR-607 | August 28, 2017 Page 6 of 6