Nathan Robinson v. State of Indiana (mem. dec.)

MEMORANDUM DECISION
Nov 12 2015, 8:41 am
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 establishing the defense of res judicata,
collateral estoppel, or the law of the case.
ATTORNEY FOR APPELLANT ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE
Matthew D. Anglemeyer Gregory F. Zoeller
Marion County Public Defender Attorney General of Indiana
Appellate Division
Angela N. Sanchez
Indianapolis, Indiana
Deputy Attorney General
Indianapolis, Indiana
IN THE
COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA
Nathan Robinson, November 12, 2015
Appellant-Defendant, Court of Appeals Case No.
49A02-1504-CR-217
v. Appeal from the Marion Superior
Court
State of Indiana, The Honorable Barbara C.
Crawford, Judge
Appellee-Plaintiff.
Trial Court Cause No. 49F09-1405-
FD-22785
Bradford, Judge.
Case Summary
[1] Appellant-Defendant Nathan Robinson kicked in the door of the house
occupied by Marty Nealy, who was alone at the time. Robinson pointed a
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 49A02-1504-CR-217 | November 12, 2015 Page 1 of 6
firearm at Marty and asked where Sebastian Jones (Marty’s great-nephew) was.
Robinson looked in Jones’s bedroom for him and then left. The State charged
Robinson with Class D felony residential entry, Class A misdemeanor pointing
a firearm, Class A misdemeanor carrying a firearm without a license, and Class
B misdemeanor criminal mischief. A jury found Robinson guilty as charged,
and the trial court entered judgment of conviction for all four counts. The trial
court imposed sentences for all four convictions, with Robinson receiving a
one-year aggregate sentence with 355 days suspended to probation. Robinson
contends that the trial court abused its discretion in declining to admit evidence
regarding Marty’s mental health and that his convictions for residential entry
and criminal mischief violate prohibitions against double jeopardy. We affirm
in part and remand with instructions to vacate Robinson’s conviction for
criminal mischief.
Facts and Procedural History
[2] In April of 2013, brothers Mark and Marty Nealy lived in an Indianapolis home
with two of their great-nephews, one of whom is Sebastian Jones. On the
afternoon of April 15, 2013, Robinson came to visit Jones; the duo smoked
marijuana in Jones’s bedroom before going outside to meet one of Jones’s
friends in order to purchase more marijuana. According to Robinson, he ended
up in the friend’s truck as the friend grabbed Robinson’s money and attempted
to drive off. At some point, either Jones or the friend struck Robinson on the
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 49A02-1504-CR-217 | November 12, 2015 Page 2 of 6
head and pushed him out of the truck. Robinson received three staples for a cut
over his left ear.
[3] Later that evening, Marty was home alone when he heard someone banging on
the door. As Marty ran downstairs, Robinson kicked in the front door.
Robinson pointed a firearm at Marty and demanded to know where Jones was.
Marty told Robinson that Jones was not home, but Robinson went to Jones’s
bedroom anyway. Robinson left after being unable to find Jones.
[4] On May 7, 2014, the State charged Robinson with Class D felony residential
entry, Class A misdemeanor pointing a firearm, Class A misdemeanor carrying
a firearm without a license, and Class B misdemeanor criminal mischief. At
trial on February 4, 2015, Robinson sought to introduce evidence from Mark
and Marty about Marty’s mental health. In an offer of proof, Robinson elicited
testimony from Mark that Mark believed Marty had been diagnosed with
schizophrenia in his twenties but did not know how such a diagnosis would
have been made. Mark testified that his parents told him that they committed
Marty after his divorce and suspected he was a schizophrenic but that the
diagnosis was “not a confirmed thing[.]” Tr. p. 61. The trial court ruled the
proffered evidence inadmissible.
[5] Defendant also made an offer of proof of Marty’s testimony regarding his
alleged mental health issues. Marty denied that he had ever been diagnosed
with a mental illness or taken medicine for one. Marty admitted that he had
been committed around the age of forty, but said that his “dad pulled that stuff
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 49A02-1504-CR-217 | November 12, 2015 Page 3 of 6
on me.” Tr. pp. 99-100. When asked if he sometimes heard voices that were
not there, Marty answered, “No. I mean, I hear (inaudible) thinking, pushing,
you know, stuff in me, whatever you want to call it” and “It’s, you know,
pushing all the stuff in your mind.” Tr. p. 101. The trial court reiterated its
earlier ruling on the evidence.
[6] A jury convicted Robinson as charged. On March 19, 2015, the trial court
sentenced Robinson to one year each for residential entry, pointing a firearm,
and carrying a handgun without a license and 180 days for criminal mischief.
The trial court ordered that all four sentences were to be served concurrently
and suspended 355 days to probation.
Discussion and Decision
I. Admission of Evidence
[7] Robinson contends that the trial court abused its discretion in refusing to allow
him to present evidence regarding Marty’s alleged mental illness. We will only
reverse a trial court’s decision on the admissibility of evidence upon a showing
of an abuse of that discretion. Curley v. State, 777 N.E.2d 58, 60 (Ind. Ct. App.
2002). An abuse of discretion may occur if the trial court’s decision is clearly
against the logic and effect of the facts and circumstances before the court, or if
the court has misinterpreted the law. Id. The Court of Appeals may affirm the
trial court’s ruling if it is sustainable on any legal basis in the record, even
though it was not the reason enunciated by the trial court. Moore v. State, 839
N.E.2d 178, 182 (Ind. Ct. App. 2005). We do not reweigh the evidence and
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 49A02-1504-CR-217 | November 12, 2015 Page 4 of 6
consider the evidence most favorable to the trial court’s ruling. Hirsey v. State,
852 N.E.2d 1008, 1012 (Ind. Ct. App. 2006).
[8] We conclude that the trial court did not abuse its discretion by declining to
admit the evidence in question. The trial court, who makes all findings of facts
relevant to admissibility of evidence pursuant to Indiana Evidence Rule 104(a),
heard conflicting and vague evidence regarding whether Marty had ever been
diagnosed with schizophrenia, or any other mental illness, with Mark testifying
that his parents told him Marty had been and Marty denying it. While Marty
did concede that he had been committed at one point, he indicated that his
father “pulled” it on him, implying that it was not warranted. Tr. p. 100. The
trial court was in the best position to evaluate this conflicting evidence.
[9] Moreover, Robinson failed to establish that evidence of Marty’s alleged mental
illness, even assuming that it is true, was relevant. It is true that “[t]he
credibility of a witness may be attacked by showing a defect of capacity in the
witness to observe, remember or recount the matters testified about.” Lusher v.
State, 390 N.E.2d 702, 704 (Ind. Ct. App. 1979). However, information about a
witness’s mental state is relevant only when it is shown to impact the ability to
recall or perceive the events in question or relate them at trial. See, e.g., Williams
v. State, 681 N.E.2d 195, 199 (Ind. 1997) (trial court did not abuse its discretion
in refusing to admit testimony about witness’s prior drug use when there was no
evidence of drug use at trial or at the time of the events related). Here, to the
extent that Marty suffered from mental illness that may have affected his ability
to recall events in general, there was no evidence presented that he was
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 49A02-1504-CR-217 | November 12, 2015 Page 5 of 6
experiencing such symptoms on April 15, 2013, or at trial. We conclude that
the trial court did not abuse its discretion in refusing to allow Robinson to
present evidence of Marty’s alleged mental illness.
II. Whether Two of Robinson’s Convictions Violate
Prohibitions Against Double Jeopardy
[10] Article I, Section 14 of the Indiana Constitution provides, in part, that “[n]o
person shall be put in jeopardy twice for the same offense.” In Richardson v.
State, 717 N.E.2d 32 (Ind. 1999), the Indiana Supreme Court held “that two or
more offenses are the ‘same offense’ in violation of Article I, Section 14 of the
Indiana Constitution, if, with respect to … the actual evidence used to convict,
the essential elements of one challenged offense also establish the essential
elements of another challenged offense.” Id. at 49-50. Robinson contends that
his convictions for residential entry and criminal mischief were supported by
the same actual evidence (i.e., evidence of him kicking in the door),
necessitating the vacation of his conviction for criminal mischief. Because the
State concedes that this is so, we need not address this argument further.
[11] The judgment of the trial court is affirmed in part and reversed in part, and we
remand with instructions to vacate Robinson’s conviction of and sentence for
Class B misdemeanor criminal mischief.
May, J., and Crone, J., concur.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 49A02-1504-CR-217 | November 12, 2015 Page 6 of 6