Javon Thomas v. State of Indiana (mem. dec.)

MEMORANDUM DECISION
Pursuant to Ind. Appellate Rule 65(D), this Apr 21 2015, 10:14 am
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
Marielena Duerring Gregory F. Zoeller
South Bend, Indiana Attorney General of Indiana
Angela N. Sanchez
Deputy Attorney General
Indianapolis, Indiana
IN THE
COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA
Javon Thomas, April 21, 2015
Appellant-Defendant, Court of Appeals Case No.
71A04-1408-CR-362
v. Appeal from the St. Joseph Superior
Court.
The Honorable John M. Marnocha,
State of Indiana, Judge.
Appellee-Plaintiff. Cause No. 71D02-1302-MR-6
Baker, Judge.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 71A04-1408-CR-362 | April 21, 2015 Page 1 of 12
[1] Javon Thomas appeals his conviction for Murder,1 a felony, the sentence
enhancement for criminal gang affiliation, and the sentence imposed by the trial
court. Thomas raises the following arguments: (1) the trial court erroneously
admitted certain evidence; (2) there is insufficient evidence supporting the
sentence enhancement for criminal gang affiliation; (3) the sentence is
inappropriate in light of the nature of the offense and his character; and (4) the
trial court erred by ordering the sentence in this case to be served consecutively
to a sentence Thomas is serving in a federal case. Finding no error, we affirm.
Facts
[2] In 2010, Thomas was a member and leader of a gang called “Cash Out Boyz.”
William Williams was a leader of a rival gang called “187.” The relationship
between these two gangs was so violent that if members of one gang saw
members of the other, they would shoot at each other.
[3] On October 31, 2010, Marcia Garcia hosted a party in South Bend for
approximately fifty people. She was so worried about gang violence that she
patted down each party attendant for weapons before they entered. Williams
went to Garcia’s party. Someone called Thomas and informed him that
Williams was at the party, so Thomas and Brison Williams (Brison), a fellow
gang member, asked a friend to drive them to the party. The friend dropped
1
Ind. Code § 35-42-1-1.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 71A04-1408-CR-362 | April 21, 2015 Page 2 of 12
them off a few houses away from the party, and they told her to drive around
the corner to wait for them.
[4] Thomas and Brison hid near some bushes adjacent to Garcia’s home.
Sometime after midnight, Williams and another partygoer exited the house.
There were multiple people standing outside in the vicinity. Thomas and
Brison then emerged from hiding and began shooting at Williams. Williams
pushed the person to whom he was talking to the ground between two parked
cars and then ran down the street. As he fled, Williams was struck in the back
and killed by a single .32-caliber bullet. He died on the scene. Thomas and
Brison had fired approximately four to seven shots with a .32-caliber semi-
automatic handgun and a .44-caliber revolver.
[5] After the shooting, Thomas and Brison returned to their friend’s vehicle; it had
been less than five minutes since she had dropped them off at the party. She
drove them home, and Thomas told the friend to just say that she “didn’t know
anything” if she was asked about the incident. Tr. p. 409. Thomas told several
people that he had killed Williams in retaliation for Williams’s involvement in a
shooting a day or two earlier. Thomas bragged that he had fired the shot that
killed Williams and began to call himself “J-Murder.” Id. at 433-34, 462-63,
464, 544. He also bragged that since the murder, people were afraid of Cash
Out Boyz. At trial, seven witnesses testified that Thomas had admitted
shooting Williams.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 71A04-1408-CR-362 | April 21, 2015 Page 3 of 12
[6] On February 19, 2013, the State charged Thomas with murder. On August 12,
2013, the State sought to have Thomas’s sentence enhanced because he is a
member of a criminal gang and committed the crime at the direction of or in
affiliation with the criminal gang. On June 11, 2014, a jury found Thomas
guilty as charged and, after a second phase of the trial, found that the State had
proved that the criminal gang sentencing enhancement applied beyond a
reasonable doubt.
[7] On July 9, 2014, the trial court sentenced Thomas to the advisory term of fifty-
five years, and enhanced that sentence by another fifty-five years as required by
the criminal gang enhancement. The trial court also ordered that this sentence
be served consecutively to a sentence Thomas was serving for a separate federal
crime. Thomas now appeals.
I. Admission of Evidence
[8] Thomas first argues that the trial court erred by admitting evidence of the gang
membership of Thomas and Williams at trial. The admission of evidence is
within the discretion of the trial court, and we will reverse only if the trial
court’s decision was clearly against the logic and effect of the facts and
circumstances before it. Lanham v. State, 937 N.E.2d 419, 421-22 (Ind. Ct. App.
2010).
[9] Prior to trial, Thomas filed a motion in limine seeking to exclude any testimony
about his own or Williams’s gang affiliation. The trial court denied the motion.
At trial, Thomas objected to Garcia’s testimony about Williams’s gang
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 71A04-1408-CR-362 | April 21, 2015 Page 4 of 12
affiliation on the basis of Evidence Rule 403. The objection was overruled.
Thomas did not object to another witness’s testimony about Thomas’s gang
affiliation. It is well established that “motions in limine do not preserve errors
for appeal; the defendant must reassert his objection at trial contemporaneously
with the introduction of the evidence.” White v. State, 687 N.E.2d 178, 179
(Ind. 1997). Consequently, Thomas has waived any argument with respect to
evidence related to his own gang affiliation. Furthermore, with respect to
Garcia’s testimony, Thomas objected solely on the basis that it was unduly
prejudicial pursuant to Evidence Rule 403. He has, therefore, waived the
argument he attempts to make on appeal, which relates to Evidence Rule
404(b). See Grace v. State, 731 N.E.2d 442, 444 (Ind. 2000) (holding that
grounds not raised in the trial court are not available on appeal).
[10] Waiver notwithstanding, we will briefly address Thomas’s arguments. Indiana
Evidence Rule 403 provides that the trial court “may exclude relevant evidence
if its probative value is substantially outweighed by a danger of . . . unfair
prejudice . . . .” Indiana Evidence Rule 404(b) prohibits evidence of prior bad
acts “to prove a person’s character in order to show that on a particular
occasion the person acted in accordance with the character,” but further
provides that the evidence may be admissible for another purpose, including
proving motive. Our Supreme Court has held that evidence regarding a
defendant’s membership in a gang may be relevant and admissible where it is
probative of motive for the commission of a crime. Williams v. State, 690
N.E.2d 162, 173-74 (Ind. 1997).
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 71A04-1408-CR-362 | April 21, 2015 Page 5 of 12
[11] The evidence that Thomas complains of in this case established that:
(1) Williams was a member of 187; (2) Garcia was so concerned about gang
violence that she patted down each of her party guests for weapons; (3) Thomas
was a member of Cash Out Boyz, a rival gang to 187; (4) the gangs frequently
feuded; (5) Thomas believed that Williams had shot at a Cash Out Boyz
member a night or two before the incident in question; and (6) Thomas told
multiple people that he shot Williams as retaliation for Williams’s role in the
earlier shooting.
[12] As in Williams, evidence related to the gang membership of both Thomas and
Williams is relevant and intrinsic to Thomas’s motive for committing the crime.
And while evidence of gang involvement may, indeed, be prejudicial, in this
case, the prejudice did not outweigh the probative value of the evidence. Burgett
v. State, 758 N.E.2d 571, 580 (Ind. Ct. App. 2001). Consequently, the trial
court did not err by admitting this evidence at trial.
II. Sufficiency
[13] Next, Thomas argues that there is insufficient evidence supporting the criminal
gang affiliation sentence enhancement. When we review a challenge to the
sufficiency of the evidence, we neither reweigh the evidence nor assess witness
credibility. McClellan v. State, 13 N.E.3d 546, 548 (Ind. Ct. App. 2014), trans.
denied. Instead, we consider only the probative evidence supporting the
conviction and the reasonable inferences to be drawn therefrom. Id. If there is
substantial evidence of probative value from which a reasonable factfinder
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 71A04-1408-CR-362 | April 21, 2015 Page 6 of 12
could have drawn the conclusion that the defendant was guilty beyond a
reasonable doubt, then the verdict will not be disturbed. Id.[14] Indiana Code section 35-50-2-15(b)2 provides as follows:
The state may seek . . . to have a person who allegedly committed a
felony offense sentenced to an additional fixed term of imprisonment if
the state can show beyond a reasonable doubt that the person
knowingly or intentionally:
(1) was a member of a criminal gang while committing the offense;
and
(2) committed the felony offense at the direction of or in affiliation
with a criminal gang.
If the jury finds that the State proved these elements beyond a reasonable doubt,
then the trial court must sentence the defendant to an additional fixed,
consecutive, non-suspendible term of imprisonment equal to the sentence
imposed for the underlying felony when, as here, the defendant is sentenced for
only one felony. I.C. § 35-50-2-15(d).
[15] Thomas argues that the State failed to prove that he committed the murder at
the direction of or in affiliation with Cash Out Boyz. Thomas first directs our
attention to caselaw interpreting and applying Indiana Code section 35-45-9-3,
which defines the crime of participation in a criminal gang. Indiana courts
have held that to be convicted of this crime, the State must prove, among other
things, that the defendant acted with a specific intent to further the group’s
2
We apply the version of this statute in effect at the time of the murder.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 71A04-1408-CR-362 | April 21, 2015 Page 7 of 12
goals. E.g., Kilpatrick v. State, 746 N.E.2d 52, 61 (Ind. 2001). As Thomas
acknowledges, however, the gang affiliation sentence enhancement at issue in
this case is “separate from” the crime defined above. Appellant’s Br. p. 23.
There is no language of specific intent in the criminal gang affiliation sentence
enhancement statute, and we decline to read such language into the law.
Instead, in the plain language of the statute itself, the State was required to
prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Thomas was a member of a criminal
gang while committing the offense—which he does not deny—and that he
committed the murder at the direction of or in affiliation with Cash Out Boyz.
[16] The phrase “in affiliation with” is not defined by the statute. This Court has
looked to the plain meaning of “affiliate” in the context of this statute, noting
that the term is defined as “‘to bring into close association or connection,’ ‘to
attach or unite on terms of fellowship,’ and ‘to associate oneself; be intimately
united in action or interest.’” Armstrong v. State, 22 N.E.3d 629, 638 (Ind. Ct.
App. 2014) (quoting The Random House Dictionary of the English Language,
Unabriged Edition 24 (1967)), trans. denied. To meet its burden under the statute,
therefore, the State was required to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that
Thomas murdered Williams while in a state of close association, connection, or
fellowship with Cash Out Boyz, or while intimately united in action or interest
with the gang.
[17] The record reveals that Thomas was a founding member and leader of Cash
Out Boyz. Williams was a member of the rival 187 gang. These two gangs had
an ongoing feud and rivalry in which gang members regularly fought and shot
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 71A04-1408-CR-362 | April 21, 2015 Page 8 of 12
firearms at each other. A day or two before the murder, Williams allegedly
shot at members of Cash Out Boyz, and Thomas told multiple people after the
murder that he had killed Williams in retaliation for that earlier shooting.
When Thomas sought out Williams on the night of the murder, he took another
armed member of the Cash Out Boyz with him. Thomas bragged about the
murder and began calling himself “J-Murder,” also bragging that after the
murder, people were scared of Cash Out Boyz because they knew he would
shoot them. Tr. p. 464, 561. We find that a reasonable jury could infer from
this evidence that Thomas murdered Williams in affiliation with Cash Out
Boyz. Consequently, we find that the evidence supporting the sentence
enhancement is not insufficient.
III. Appropriateness
[18] Next, Thomas argues that the sentence imposed by the trial court is
inappropriate in light of the nature of the offense and his character. Indiana
Appellate Rule 7(B) provides that this Court may revise a sentence if it is
inappropriate in light of the nature of the offense and the character of the
offender. We must “conduct [this] review with substantial deference and give
‘due consideration’ to the trial court’s decision—since the ‘principal role of
[our] review is to attempt to leaven the outliers,’ and not to achieve a perceived
‘correct’ sentence . . . .” Knapp v. State, 9 N.E.3d 1274, 1292 (Ind. 2014)
(quoting Chambers v. State, 989 N.E.2d 1257, 1259 (Ind. 2013)) (internal
citations omitted).
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 71A04-1408-CR-362 | April 21, 2015 Page 9 of 12
[19] A person who is convicted of murder is eligible for a sentence between forty-five
and sixty-five years, with an advisory term of fifty-five years. Ind. Code § 35-
50-2-3. Here, Thomas was sentenced to the advisory term. 3
[20] Turning first to the nature of the offense, we note that when Thomas learned
that Williams was at Garcia’s party, he armed himself and took another armed
gang member with him to find Williams. They instructed the person who drove
their vehicle to wait for them on another street. Then, Thomas and the other
gang member hid, waiting for Williams to emerge from the house. When he
did, Thomas began shooting at Williams with no regard for the other people
present on the public street. Ultimately, Thomas shot Williams in the back as
Williams fled for his life. Thomas admitted that the sole reason he killed
Williams was in retaliation for another act of gang violence that had occurred a
day or two earlier. We do not find that the nature of the offense in any way
supports Thomas’s sentencing argument.
[21] As to Thomas’s character, he was a founder and leader of the Cash Out Boyz
Gang. Since committing the murder at issue herein, he has been convicted of
two other felony gun charges. He has a long list of negative contacts with law
enforcement dating back to his juvenile years. In this case, after killing
3
While Thomas also focuses part of his appropriateness argument on the sentence enhancement, we note
that once a factfinder concludes that the State has met its burden, the enhancement is mandatory and non-
discretionary. I.C. § 35-50-2-15. Its terms are set by the statute and neither the trial court nor this Court
retain any jurisdiction to alter those terms. Id. Consequently, we will not factor the enhancement into our
7(B) analysis.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 71A04-1408-CR-362 | April 21, 2015 Page 10 of 12
Williams, Thomas bragged about the murder and even gave himself a new
nickname as a result. We do not find that Thomas’s character supports his
sentencing argument. In other words, we do not find that the fifty-five-year
sentence imposed by the trial court is inappropriate in light of the nature of the
offense and Thomas’s character. Given that, the trial court was required to
impose an additional, consecutive fifty-five-year term for the criminal gang
affiliation enhancement.
IV. Federal Case
[22] Finally, Thomas argues that the trial court erred by ordering that his sentence
herein be served consecutively to a sentence he is serving for a separate federal
conviction. In Thomas’s view, the trial court imposed consecutive sentences
because it believed it was required to do so. He bases this argument on the
following comments made by the trial court at sentencing:
Not only do I believe there is authority that I can run it consecutively,
but I don’t know if there is authority that I cannot run it consecutive to
another jurisdiction’s case. So having considered all of that, having
considered the nature of the federal case and Mr. Thomas’s history,
the sentence will be served consecutively to the federal case[.]
Tr. p. 712. It is readily apparent that the trial court was acknowledging that it
could order consecutive sentences but was uncertain whether it was obligated to
do so. Regardless, having weighed all of the appropriate considerations, the
trial court concluded that consecutive sentences were warranted in this case.
We see no basis to disturb that conclusion, and find no error on this basis.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 71A04-1408-CR-362 | April 21, 2015 Page 11 of 12
[23] The judgment of the trial court is affirmed.
Crone, J., and Brown, J., concur.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 71A04-1408-CR-362 | April 21, 2015 Page 12 of 12