Demetre Brown v. State of Indiana

FILED
May 06 2016, 8:37 am
CLERK
Indiana Supreme Court
Court of Appeals
and Tax Court
ATTORNEY FOR APPELLANT ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE
Lisa M. Johnson Gregory F. Zoeller
Brownsburg, Indiana Attorney General of Indiana
Jodi Kathryn Stein
Deputy Attorney General
Indianapolis, Indiana
IN THE
COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA
Demetre Brown, May 6, 2016
Appellant-Defendant, Court of Appeals Cause No.
49A02-1505-CR-391
v. Appeal from the Marion Superior
Court
State of Indiana, The Honorable Lisa Borges, Judge
Appellee-Plaintiff. Trial Court Cause No.
49G04-1311-FA-75992
Barnes, Judge.
Case Summary
[1] Demetre Brown appeals his convictions for one count each of Class A felony
attempted criminal deviate conduct, Class A felony burglary, Class A felony
robbery, Class B felony robbery, Class C felony robbery, two counts of Class A
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 49A02-1505-CR-391 | May 6, 2016 Page 1 of 19
felony rape, and three counts of Class B felony carjacking. He also appeals his
248-year sentence. We affirm in part and reverse in part.
Issues
[2] Brown raises four issues, which we restate as:
I. whether the trial court properly admitted
testimony from Brown’s former attorney,
testimony from other witnesses regarding
information obtained from Brown’s former
attorney, and physical evidence that Brown’s
former attorney provided to the State;
II. whether Brown’s three convictions for robbery
and three convictions for carjacking violate the
single larceny rule;
III. whether Brown’s convictions for Class A
felony robbery and Class A felony burglary
violate the prohibition against double
jeopardy; and
IV. whether Brown’s 248-year sentence is
inappropriate in light of the nature of the
offenses and his character.
Facts
[3] During the evening of October 28, 2013, Brown, Trae Spells, Alexander
Dupree, Michael Pugh, and Adrian Anthony were together at an apartment at
34th Street and Meridian Street in Indianapolis. At some point, the men left the
apartment and went to a party, where they met with Isaiah Hill. The six men
left the party together and drove around.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 49A02-1505-CR-391 | May 6, 2016 Page 2 of 19
[4] At approximately 5:00 a.m., they saw a residence on East 79th Street with an
open garage door, and they thought it would be an easy target to rob. C.P and
E.P. lived at the residence with their twenty-four-year-old daughter, A.P. Their
other daughter was away at college. C.P. has a neurological condition that
requires him to use leg braces and a cane to walk. The men entered the garage,
put gloves on, and went inside the house. C.P. and E.P. were awakened in
their upstairs bedroom by the men who were yelling and demanding cash, cell
phones, and guns. Brown was carrying Pugh’s .38 revolver, and Anthony was
also carrying a revolver. When the men realized that C.P. was disabled, they
instructed him to stay in bed. E.P., however, was ordered to get up. A.P.
heard the commotion and walked toward her parents’ bedroom. A.P. offered
her purse to the men to end the situation, but she was ordered back to her
bedroom. In A.P.’s bedroom, Spells and Brown searched for electronics and
jewelry. At some point, one of the men touched the back of A.P.’s leg and her
vagina.
[5] C.P., E.P., and A.P. were repeatedly ordered to keep their heads down and not
to look at the men. E.P. was escorted into the hallway by Anthony. Once in
the hallway, E.P. ran toward the office to call for help. Anthony, however, shot
E.P. in the leg. E.P. was taken downstairs as the men ransacked the house.
Anthony led E.P. outside to take her to an ATM, and E.P. attempted to run
again. Anthony tackled E.P., led her back inside the house, and shot her in the
foot. E.P.’s blood sprayed onto the revolver carried by Brown. One of the men
also kicked E.P. on the head. Hill and Anthony then drove E.P. to a nearby
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 49A02-1505-CR-391 | May 6, 2016 Page 3 of 19
bank to obtain cash from the ATM. When they realized that E.P. did not have
the passcode for A.P.’s debit card, they turned around to return to the house.
On the way there, Anthony sexually assaulted E.P. At the house, they retrieved
C.P.’s debit card, and Anthony forced E.P. to drive him to the ATM. Hill
remained at the house. At the ATM, E.P. was able to withdraw $800 at 6:28
a.m.
[6] As E.P. was being forced to withdraw money from the ATM, the men took
A.P. downstairs. Dupree and Hill sexually assaulted A.P. in the bathroom, and
Hill, Dupree, Brown, and Spells sexually assaulted A.P. in the den. C.P., who
was being guarded and forced to stay in his bed, could hear “whooping” sounds
coming from the den. Tr. p. 287. C.P. was also beat with a nightstand drawer
when he did not answer questions quickly enough.
[7] Anthony returned to the house with E.P. and took A.P. to the bank. At 7:02
a.m., A.P. withdrew $800 from the ATM for Anthony. Anthony tried to touch
A.P.’s vagina in the drive-thru lane at the bank. When they returned to the
house, Anthony asked E.P. where the others were, and she said they were gone.
Anthony took E.P. and A.P. to the master bedroom, and he left the house in
E.P.’s Ford Escape. Spells had taken C.P.’s Infiniti sedan, and Brown and
Dupree left in A.P.’s Mitsubishi Spyder.
[8] The men abandoned the vehicles and took the stolen items to a shed behind
Dupree’s mother’s house. They left a trail of jewelry on the driveway of
Dupree’s mother’s house. At approximately 11:00 a.m., the six men went to
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 49A02-1505-CR-391 | May 6, 2016 Page 4 of 19
the apartment of Amanda Burke, who was Pugh’s girlfriend, at 34th Street and
Meridian Street, where they were recorded on surveillance video.
[9] The home invasion lasted over two hours. A.P. ran to a neighbor’s house to
obtain help, and E.P. and A.P. were taken to the hospital for treatment. Crime
scene investigators began processing the residence. By the next day, Dupree
had been identified because his fingerprints were found in the bathroom where
A.P. was sexually assaulted. Dupree’s phone records showed numerous calls to
and from Pugh, and Dupree’s phone was located in Burke’s apartment building.
Pugh was arrested in a vehicle near the apartment building, and he had his
revolver, which was splattered with E.P.’s blood, on the floorboard of the
vehicle. A woman with Pugh had E.P.’s watch in her purse. Dupree was
arrested in Burke’s apartment.
[10] Spells was arrested the next day, and he eventually gave a statement implicating
himself, Dupree, Pugh, Brown, Anthony, and Hill. DNA evidence also
connected Spells to the home invasion and sexual assault of A.P. When Brown
was arrested in early November at his mother’s house, the assistance of a
SWAT team was necessary to arrest him. Anthony was arrested in late
November, and he admitted to participating in the home invasion and sexually
assaulting E.P. DNA evidence and fingerprints also connected Anthony to the
home invasion and sexual assault of E.P. Hill was eventually located in Texas
in January 2014. Hill also admitted to participating in the home invasion and
the sexual assault of A.P. DNA evidence connected Hill to the home invasion.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 49A02-1505-CR-391 | May 6, 2016 Page 5 of 19
[11] The State charged Brown, Anthony, Dupree, Pugh, and Spells with thirty-five
counts each, including twelve counts of Class A felony criminal deviate
conduct, four counts of Class A felony rape, two counts of Class A felony
attempted criminal deviate conduct, three counts of Class B felony robbery,
three counts of Class B felony carjacking, three counts of Class B felony
criminal confinement, two counts of Class C felony intimidation, one count of
Class B felony aggravated battery, one count of Class A misdemeanor battery
by bodily waste, two counts of Class C felony battery, one count of Class A
misdemeanor battery, and one count of Class A felony burglary.1
[12] Attorney Heather Barton was retained by Brown’s family to represent him in a
different criminal matter, and she spoke with Brown in a holding cell after a
hearing in that case. Barton then contacted Brown’s mother and made
arrangements to meet with her at her house. While Barton was at Brown’s
mother’s house, Barton indicated that she was looking for a white box and a
gun, and they searched for the items. Brown’s brother gave her a white laptop,
which Barton took to her office. Barton examined the laptop and discovered
that it was “likely the proceeds of a crime.” App. p. 196. Barton then called
the prosecutor’s office and turned the laptop over to the police. The laptop
belonged to A.P., and Brown’s fingerprint was found on the laptop.
1
Spells pled guilty, and Hill was charged separately.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 49A02-1505-CR-391 | May 6, 2016 Page 6 of 19
[13] Brown filed a motion to exclude evidence obtained directly or indirectly “in
violation of the attorney-client privilege.” App. p. 171. The State argued that a
confidential communication was not involved because “it occurred in the
presence and hearing of at least fifteen disinterested individuals.” App. p. 388.
Alternatively, the State argued that Barton’s testimony would relate only to her
actions, “not to the words or advice shared between she and her client . . . .” Id.
at 389. After a hearing, the trial court denied Brown’s motion to exclude
Barton’s testimony but ordered that her testimony be limited regarding “where
the information was gleaned.” Tr. p. 1473.
[14] Brown, Pugh, Anthony, and Dupree were tried together, and the jury trial was
held in March 2015. Barton testified over Brown’s objection.2 Barton testified
that she met with Brown and, after the meeting, she went to Brown’s mother’s
home to “retrieve some items.” Tr. p. 704. She was assisted by Brown’s
mother, his brother, and the mother’s boyfriend. Brown’s brother gave her the
laptop, which she took to her office. Barton’s stepson assisted her with the
laptop, and she discovered that the owner of the laptop was associated with this
action. She then contacted the prosecutor’s office and the police, and officers
retrieved the laptop from her office. The fact that Barton was an attorney
representing Brown was not mentioned during the testimony. Spells also
testified against the defendants.
2
Barton did not represent Brown in this matter.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 49A02-1505-CR-391 | May 6, 2016 Page 7 of 19
[15] During the trial, the State dismissed seven of the charges. The jury ultimately
found Brown guilty of twenty counts: four counts of Class A felony rape, two
counts of Class A felony attempted criminal deviate conduct, two counts of
Class B felony robbery, three counts of Class B felony carjacking, three counts
of Class B felony criminal confinement, two counts of Class C felony
intimidation, Class B felony aggravated battery, Class A felony robbery, Class
C felony battery, and Class A felony burglary. Due to double jeopardy
concerns, the trial court imposed a sentence on only ten counts: one count each
of Class A felony attempted criminal deviate conduct, Class A felony burglary,
Class A felony robbery, Class B felony robbery, Class C felony robbery, two
counts of Class A felony rape, and three counts of Class B felony carjacking.
The trial court sentenced Brown to fifty years on each of the Class A felony
convictions, twenty years on each of the Class B felony convictions, and eight
years on the Class C felony conviction. The trial court then ordered Brown to
serve the sentences for the rape and attempted criminal deviate conduct
convictions related to A.P. concurrently and to serve the sentences for the
carjacking convictions concurrently. The remainder of the sentences were
ordered to be served consecutively for an aggregate sentence of 248 years in the
Department of Correction. Brown now appeals.
Analysis
I. Attorney-Client Privilege
[16] Brown argues that the trial court abused its discretion by admitting Barton’s
testimony, testimony from other witnesses regarding information obtained from
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 49A02-1505-CR-391 | May 6, 2016 Page 8 of 19
Barton, and the physical evidence that Barton provided to the State. According
to Brown, Barton violated the attorney-client privilege by revealing information
relating to her representation of Brown. The State concedes that Brown and
Barton had an attorney-client relationship but argues that there was no
privileged communication involved here.
[17] Indiana Code Section 34-46-3-1(a) provides that: “Except as otherwise provided
by statute, the following persons shall not be required to testify regarding the
following communications: (1) Attorneys, as to confidential communications
made to them in the course of their professional business, and as to advice given
in such cases.” The attorney-client privilege protects against judicially-
compelled disclosure of confidential information. Lahr v. State, 731 N.E.2d 479,
482 (Ind. Ct. App. 2000). The harm to be prevented is not the manner in which
the confidence is revealed, but the revelation itself. Id. “The privilege is
intended to encourage ‘full and frank communication between attorneys and
their clients and thereby promote broader public interests in the observance of
law and the administration of justice.’” Id. (quoting Upjohn Co. v. United States,
449 U.S. 383, 389, 101 S. Ct. 677 (1981)). Furthermore, the privilege allows
both the attorney and the client to give complete and confidential information,
so that both may be fully advised regarding the attorney’s services to the client,
and the client is assured that confidences are not violated. Id.[18] In construing this statute, our supreme court has determined that the burden
rests with the person who asserts the privilege to show by a preponderance of
the evidence: (1) the existence of an attorney-client relationship; and (2) that a
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 49A02-1505-CR-391 | May 6, 2016 Page 9 of 19
confidential communication was involved. Mayberry v. State, 670 N.E.2d 1262,
1266 (Ind. 1996). Because the privilege prevents the disclosure of relevant
information and impedes the quest for truth, the privilege should be narrowly
construed. Shanabarger v. State, 798 N.E.2d 210, 215-16 (Ind. Ct. App. 2003),
trans. denied.
[19] We have significant concerns and deep reservations about the events that
occurred here and Barton’s questionable conduct. Brown correctly points out
that there are attorney professional conduct rules implicated. See Ind.
Professional Conduct Rule 1.6(a) (“A lawyer shall not reveal information
relating to representation of a client unless the client gives informed consent,
the disclosure is impliedly authorized in order to carry out the representation or
the disclosure is permitted by paragraph (b).”). However, Brown cites no
authority for the proposition that an ethical violation should result in the
exclusion of evidence in a criminal trial unless it violates the attorney-client
privilege statute.
[20] Despite our concerns about Barton’s conduct, we need not and do not address
whether the trial court erred by admitting the evidence at issue because any
error was harmless. Brown must also show that any error was prejudicial to his
substantial rights. Williams v. State, 43 N.E.3d 578, 583 (Ind. 2015). In
evaluating whether erroneously-admitted evidence was prejudicial, we assess its
“probable impact . . . upon the jury in light of all of the other evidence that was
properly presented. If we are satisfied the conviction is supported by
independent evidence of guilt[,] . . . the error is harmless.” Id. “Put another
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 49A02-1505-CR-391 | May 6, 2016 Page 10 of 19
way, ‘we judge whether the jury’s verdict was substantially swayed. If the error
had substantial influence, or if one is left in grave doubt, the conviction cannot
stand.’” Id. (quoting Lafayette v. State, 917 N.E.2d 660, 666-67 (Ind. 2009)).
[21] Brown argues that his DNA and fingerprints were not found on the victims, in
their home, or on their vehicles and that the laptop and his fingerprint on the
laptop were a substantial aspect of the State’s case. However, the State also
presented evidence that Brown was seen on surveillance video with the other
defendants a short time after the home invasion, the help of a SWAT team was
necessary to effectuate Brown’s arrest, and Spells testified extensively against
Brown and the other defendants. See Jenkins v. State, 909 N.E.2d 1080, 1083
(Ind. Ct. App. 2009) (noting that flight leads to a reasonable inference of guilt),
trans. denied. Spells’s testimony was largely consistent with the testimonies of
the victims and the physical evidence found. Brown questions Spells’s
credibility and points out that Spells testified that four men, including Brown,
raped A.P. and that A.P. testified to three rapes. However, the jury clearly
found Spells’s testimony credible. Given Spells’s testimony, its consistency
with the victims’ testimonies, the video surveillance of Brown and the other
defendants shortly after the home invasion, and Brown’s attempt to evade
capture, we are satisfied that the convictions are supported by independent
evidence and that any error in the admission of Barton’s testimony, the laptop,
and fingerprint evidence was harmless. See, e.g., Russell v. State, 743 N.E.2d 269(Ind. 2001) (holding that the admission of the defendant’s wife’s testimony in
violation of the spousal privilege was harmless error).
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 49A02-1505-CR-391 | May 6, 2016 Page 11 of 19
II. Single Larceny Rule
[22] Brown argues that his convictions for three counts of robbery (Counts XIII,
XVIII, and XXXIII) and three counts of carjacking (Counts XIV, XXVII, and
XXXII) violate the single larceny rule. According to Brown, there should be
“one conviction, not six.” Appellant’s Br. p. 43.
[23] The single larceny rule has historically provided that “‘when several articles of
property are taken at the same time, from the same place, belonging to the same
person or to several persons there is but a single ‘larceny’, i.e. a single offense.’”
Curtis v. State, 42 N.E.3d 529, 534 (Ind. Ct. App. 2015) (quoting Raines v. State,
514 N.E.2d 298, 300 (Ind. 1987)), trans. denied. “The rationale behind this rule
is that the taking of several articles at the same time from the same place is
pursuant to a single intent and design.” Id. “If only one offense is committed,
there may be but one judgment and one sentence.” Id.[24] With respect to the robbery charges, Count XIII alleged that Brown “did
knowingly, while armed with a deadly weapon, that is: a handgun, take from
[A.P.] property, that is: currency, and/or computer, and/or jewelry, and/or
keys, and/or television, and/or cellular phone, by putting [A.P.] in fear or by
using or threatening the use of force on [A.P.].” App. p. 66. Count XVIII
alleged that Brown “did knowingly, while armed with a deadly weapon, that is:
a handgun, take from [E.P.] property, that is: currency, and/or watch, and/or
jewelry, and/or keys, and/or television, and/or cellular phone, by putting
[E.P.] in fear or by using or threatening the use of force on [E.P.] . . . .” Id. at
67-68. Count XXXIII alleged that Brown “did knowingly, while armed with a
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 49A02-1505-CR-391 | May 6, 2016 Page 12 of 19
deadly weapon, that is: a handgun, take from [C.P.] property, that is: currency,
and/or computer, and/or television, and/or cellular phone, and/or keys, by
putting [C.P.] in fear or by using or threatening the use of force on [C.P.].” Id.
at 71.
[25] With respect to the carjacking charges, Count XIV alleged that Brown “did
knowingly take from [A.P.] a motor vehicle, that is: a Mitsubishi convertible,
by putting [A.P.] in fear or by using or threatening the use of force on [A.P.].”
Id. at 66. Count XXVII alleged that Brown “did knowingly take from [E.P.] a
motor vehicle, that is: a Ford Escape, by putting [E.P.] in fear or by using or
threatening the use of force on [E.P.].” Id. at 269. Count XXXII alleged that
Brown “did knowingly take from [C.P.] a motor vehicle, that is: an Infinity
sedan, by putting [C.P.] in fear or by using or threatening the use of force on
[C.P.].” Id. at 71.
[26] Our supreme court has held that the single larceny rule “does not apply to the
situation . . . where a robber has taken the individual property of separate
individuals.” Ferguson v. State, 273 Ind. 468, 475, 405 N.E.2d 902, 906 (1980);
see also Curtis, 42 N.E.3d at 536 (holding that the single larceny rule did not
apply where the defendant “first robbed Shweiki, in her capacity as an
employee of CVS, of property belonging to the pharmacy, i.e., the Opana pills
[and] then robbed Williams of her personal property, i.e., her car keys”). The
defendants here robbed and carjacked multiple victims, C.P., E.P., and A.P.
Consequently, the single larceny rule does not apply as between the robbery
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 49A02-1505-CR-391 | May 6, 2016 Page 13 of 19
charges, i.e., robbing C.P., E.P., and A.P., or as between the carjacking
charges, i.e., carjacking C.P., E.P., and A.P.
[27] The only remaining issue is whether Brown’s convictions for robbing each
individual victim and also carjacking the same victim, i.e., robbing C.P. and
also carjacking C.P., violate the single larceny rule. A.P. and E.P. were robbed
of several items, including currency at a bank several blocks away from the
residence, and they were carjacked later as the defendants were leaving the
residence. The currency and vehicles were not taken at the same time and from
the same place, so the single larceny rule is inapplicable. See, e.g., Bivens v. State,
642 N.E.2d 928, 945 (Ind. 1994) (holding that the single larceny rule was
inapplicable where the defendant stole money and a credit card from the
victim’s motel room and the victim’s automobile from the motel parking lot).
[28] The charges related to C.P. require additional analysis. C.P. was robbed while
he was at the residence and his vehicle was also taken from outside the
residence. Despite the close locations of the offenses, we also conclude that the
single larceny rule is inapplicable. We addressed a similar situation in J.R. v.
State, 982 N.E.2d 1037 (Ind. Ct. App. 2013), trans. denied. In J.R., a juvenile
defendant burglarized a residence and also took a vehicle from the attached
garage. He was alleged to be delinquent because he had committed, in part,
acts that would be Class D felony theft and Class D felony auto theft, and the
trial court entered true findings. On appeal, he argued that the theft and auto
theft adjudications could not stand under the single larceny rule. We concluded
that, although the offenses occurred at the same time and at the same residence,
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 49A02-1505-CR-391 | May 6, 2016 Page 14 of 19
they were “distinct because they each involved the violation of a different
statute.”3 Id. at 1039; see also Curtis, 42 N.E.3d at 538 (holding, in part, that the
armed robbery and auto theft convictions were separate and distinct crimes and
were not subject to the single larceny rule). For the reasons discussed in J.R.,
we also conclude that the robbery and carjacking convictions related to C.P. are
not subject to the single larceny rule.
III. Double Jeopardy
[29] Brown argues that his convictions for Class A felony robbery (Count XVIII)
and Class A felony burglary (Count XXXV) violate the prohibition against
double jeopardy. According to Brown, the same bodily injury to E.P. enhanced
both the burglary and robbery convictions. The State concedes that the
elevation of both the robbery and burglary convictions to Class A felonies based
on the same serious bodily injury violates the prohibition against double
jeopardy. Appellee’s Br. p. 49 (citing Pierce v. State, 761 N.E.2d 826, 830 (Ind.
2002)). The State suggests that the appropriate remedy is for this court to
reduce the robbery conviction to a Class B felony and adjust the sentence for
that conviction from fifty years to twenty years. In his reply brief, Brown agrees
that this is an appropriate remedy. Consequently, we reduce the robbery
conviction in Count XVIII to a Class B felony and adjust Brown’s sentence to
3
In J.R., we distinguished Stout v. State, 479 N.E.2d 563 (Ind. 1985), where the defendant was charged with
two counts of theft—one for the theft of personal property and one for the theft of an automobile—because
the offense of auto theft was not a distinct statute at that time.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 49A02-1505-CR-391 | May 6, 2016 Page 15 of 19
twenty years instead of fifty years for this conviction. The State and Brown
agree that this results in an aggregate sentence of 218 years.
IV. Sentence
[30] Brown argues that his 248-year sentence is inappropriate. Given our resolution
of the double jeopardy issue presented by Brown, we will review whether his
adjusted 218-year sentence is inappropriate.
[31] Indiana Appellate Rule 7(B) permits us to revise a sentence authorized by
statute if, after due consideration of the trial court’s decision, we find that the
sentence is inappropriate in light of the nature of the offense and the character
of the offender. Although Appellate Rule 7(B) does not require us to be
“extremely” deferential to a trial court’s sentencing decision, we still must give
due consideration to that decision. Rutherford v. State, 866 N.E.2d 867, 873
(Ind. Ct. App. 2007). We also understand and recognize the unique perspective
a trial court brings to its sentencing decisions. Id. “Additionally, a defendant
bears the burden of persuading the appellate court that his or her sentence is
inappropriate.” Id.[32] The principal role of Appellate Rule 7(B) review “should be to attempt to
leaven the outliers, and identify some guiding principles for trial courts and
those charged with improvement of the sentencing statutes, but not to achieve a
perceived ‘correct’ result in each case.” Cardwell v. State, 895 N.E.2d 1219, 1225
(Ind. 2008). We “should focus on the forest—the aggregate sentence—rather
than the trees—consecutive or concurrent, number of counts, or length of the
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 49A02-1505-CR-391 | May 6, 2016 Page 16 of 19
sentence on any individual count.” Id. Whether a sentence is inappropriate
ultimately turns on the culpability of the defendant, the severity of the crime,
the damage done to others, and myriad other factors that come to light in a
given case. Id. at 1224.
[33] Brown argues that his sentence (now 218 years) is functionally equivalent to life
without parole but that he is statutorily ineligible for life without parole. We
have previously rejected similar arguments. See Wright v. State, 916 N.E.2d 269,
279-80 (Ind. Ct. App. 2009), trans. denied. Life without parole is a specific
sentence which is authorized in specific instances and applies to sentencing an
individual on one count. Id. Here, Brown’s sentence is based on his ten
convictions. Although Brown’s combined sentence exceeds his expected life
span, his sentence is nevertheless a term of years and does not officially
foreclose the possibility of parole, however slight. See id.[34] The nature of the offenses in this case were appropriately described by the trial
court as “unbelievably aggravating.” Tr. p. 1429. The trial court noted that the
victims were “in the sanctity of their home where they [were] not just attacked,
not just burglarized or robbed, but humiliated, literally humiliated, and treated
as if they were nothing.” Id. Brown and his co-defendants invaded the victims’
home, threatened and intimidated them, robbed them, ransacked their home,
shot E.P. twice, sexually assaulted E.P., sexually assaulted A.P., and beat C.P.
The home invasion was horrific and lasted two hours.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 49A02-1505-CR-391 | May 6, 2016 Page 17 of 19
[35] As for twenty-one-year-old Brown’s character, he was arrested eleven times as a
juvenile, resulting in true findings for what would have been Class A
misdemeanor carrying a handgun without a license, Class B felony burglary,
Class D felony auto theft, and Class B misdemeanor public intoxication. As an
adult, Brown was convicted of Class C misdemeanor illegal possession of an
alcoholic beverage, Class A misdemeanor possession of marijuana, Class A
misdemeanor driving with a suspended license on two occasions, and Class A
misdemeanor battery. Although Brown argues that these convictions are
“unrelated” to the instant offenses, we disagree. Rather, we agree with the
State that his prior criminal history was “a primer to the present offenses” and
is highly relevant. Appellee’s Br. p. 55. The trial court noted Brown’s ADHD,
an unnamed “emotional disorder,” and his substance abuse. Tr. p. 1431.
However, we find none of these factors warrants a reduction of Brown’s
sentence. Given the horrific nature of the crimes and Brown’s criminal history,
we conclude that the 218-year sentence is not inappropriate.
Conclusion
[36] We conclude that any error in the admission of Barton’s testimony, the laptop,
and Brown’s fingerprint on the laptop was harmless. Brown’s single larceny
rule argument fails, but based on the prohibition against double jeopardy, we
reduce his Class A felony robbery conviction to a Class B felony and adjust his
sentence for that conviction from fifty years to twenty years. Additionally, we
find that his adjusted 218-year sentence is not inappropriate. We affirm in part
and reverse in part.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 49A02-1505-CR-391 | May 6, 2016 Page 18 of 19
[37] Affirmed in part and reversed in part.
Vaidik, C.J., and Mathias, J., concur.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 49A02-1505-CR-391 | May 6, 2016 Page 19 of 19