William Minnick v. State of Indiana

FOR PUBLICATION
ATTORNEY FOR APPELLANT: ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE:
BRENT WESTERFELD GREGORY F. ZOELLER
Indianapolis, Indiana Attorney General of Indiana
STEPHEN R. CREASON
Deputy Attorney General
FILED
Indianapolis, Indiana
Apr 03 2012, 8:56 am
IN THE
COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA CLERK
of the supreme court,
court of appeals and
tax court
WILLIAM MINNICK, )
)
Appellant-Defendant, )
)
vs. ) No. 47A05-1108-CR-448
)
STATE OF INDIANA, )
)
Appellee-Plaintiff. )
APPEAL FROM THE LAWRENCE CIRCUIT COURT
The Honorable Andrea K. McCord, Judge
Cause No. 47C01-8507-CF-39
April 3, 2012
OPINION - FOR PUBLICATION
BRADFORD, Judge
Appellant-Defendant William Minnick appeals from the sentence imposed
following his convictions for Murder,1 a felony, Class A felony Robbery,2 and Class A
felony Rape.3 Minnick contends that the trial court erred in imposing sentences for his
robbery and rape convictions, that his convictions for Class A felony robbery and murder
violate prohibitions against double jeopardy, and that the trial court abused its discretion
in refusing to order an additional competency evaluation before sentencing him. We
affirm in part and reverse and remand in part with instructions.
FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY
The facts underlying Minnick’s convictions were related by the Indiana Supreme
Court in Minnick v. State, 544 N.E.2d 471 (Ind. 1989):
On the afternoon of October 26, 1981, James D. Payne returned from work
to his home in Greencastle, Indiana. He discovered his wife’s body on the
bedroom floor. He immediately called police. The ensuing investigation
revealed Martha Payne had been raped, anally sodomized, stabbed in the
right rear shoulder, and struck on the head with a table lamp. In addition,
ligature marks on her neck indicated she had been strangled, and burn
marks on her ankles showed the perpetrator had attempted to electrocute
her as well. The cause of death was determined to be the knife wound in
her upper back, which penetrated her lung and severed her pulmonary
artery.
That night Sergeant Rodney Cline became aware that a ―Dukes of
Hazzard‖-type car had been observed parked in a college fraternity’s lot
near the victim’s home around the time of her death. Cline confirmed the
driver’s description matched that of appellant, who had spoken to Cline
outside the victim’s house that afternoon to apologize for a dispute the two
had engaged in a week earlier concerning the involuntary towing of
appellant’s distinctive orange Dodge Charger.
Appellant was subsequently arrested and search warrants were
obtained for his car and for specimens of his blood and hair for comparison
1
Ind. Code § 35-42-1-1 (1981).
2
Ind. Code § 35-42-5-1 (1981).
3
Ind. Code § 35-42-4-1 (1981).
2
with samples taken at the crime scene. A strand of hair found adhering to a
length of electrical wire in appellant’s car was determined to be of common
origin with hair samples taken from the victim. Laboratory tests revealed
the victim’s blood was type B and matched blood specimens found on a
broken table lamp and kitchen knife found at the crime scene. Semen
specimens recovered from the carpet underneath the victim turned out to be
from two separate donors: one a type O secretor, i.e., one who secretes the
antigens used in typing blood in other body fluids, and the other a non-
secretor of unknown type. The victim’s husband and appellant were each
determined to have type O blood—the husband a secretor, appellant a non-
secretor. Thus appellant was neither positively identified nor definitively
ruled out as a donor of the semen found under the victim’s body.
Appellant’s alibi witnesses testified as to his whereabouts at various
times the afternoon of the murder. Due to technical oversights following
discovery of the victim’s body, however, authorities were unable to pin
down her time of death with any precision. Appellant admitted to Sergeant
Cline that he had been in the victim’s home that afternoon to see about
doing some remodeling work for the Paynes. In addition, two witnesses
testified at trial that appellant had made inculpatory admissions relating
certain details of the murder while incarcerated.
Id. at 473-74. On October 29, 1981, the State charged Minnick with murder, Class A
felony robbery, Class A felony rape, and criminal deviate conduct. On September 18,
1985, a jury found Minnick guilty of murder, robbery, and rape. On October 16, 1985,
the trial court sentenced Minnick to death for his murder but did not impose separate
sentences for robbery or rape. During sentencing, the trial court did not mention a reason
for not imposing sentences for Minnick’s robbery or rape convictions and Minnick did
not object to his not being sentenced for them.
On December 1, 2004, the post-conviction court set aside Minnick’s death
sentence and ordered resentencing and also determined that he was incompetent, having
been previously found to be so by the United States District Court. On March 7, 2011,
3
the Indiana Department of Mental Health sent certification to the trial court that Minnick
was competent.
On August 23, 2011, the trial court held a new sentencing hearing. At the
beginning of the hearing, the following exchange took place:
[Minnick’s Counsel]: Very reluctantly I would ask the Court to have
Mr. Minnick examined for competency. Mr. Minnick, as the Court is
aware, has a very very long history of suffering from paranoid
schizophrenia. He was diagnosed with that in his post conviction
proceedings several years ago. He was determined to be incompetent in
Federal Court and a Guardian was appointed for him. He had indeed been
largely incompetent for the last ten (10) years. While I had (indiscernible)
that Mr. Minnick had been restored to competency, upon speaking with him
today it’s very clear to me that he is not at this point competent, he is not at
this point able to assist his counsel. Ms. Youngcourt is here at my request
because she represented Mr. Minnick in post conviction. We both believe
that a further competency determination is required at this point and I won’t
say much further about that other than I would refer the Court to a Pre-
Sentence Investigation Report, which I think gave us some sense that this
may have been coming. In that report it indicates that the probation officer
requested a statement from Mr. Minnick and at that point he went into a
soliloquy that lasted approximately three and a half (3 ½) hours. Regarding
some of the same things the Court is aware of, the problems that we’ve had
with Mr. Minnick’s mental illness through the years, for those reasons I
would ask that the Court admit him under the statute for a competency
determination and that we delay these proceedings.
COURT: [Prosecutor], do you have a response?
[Prosecutor]: Yes. The State would object, Your Honor. The
Department of Mental Health found him competent, I think, in early March.
There’s been no expert testimony about that since. We think that the thing
to [do] today is go ahead and present evidence and see how this proceeds.
COURT: I do trust defense counsel’s evaluation of Mr. Minnick
because they have worked with him over the years. How I would like to
proceed however is that the Department of Mental Health has found Mr.
Minnick recently to be competent to assist counsel and Mr. Minnick to help
your attorney in today’s hearing, I’d like to at least try to get through this
hearing. If at some point you want to revisit this issue, re-raise it, let me
know that he’s not able to assist you or discuss with you what’s happening
in the courtroom, at any point in the hearing you may re-raise it. I think the
Court will note your request for the record. I would like the State to go
4
ahead and proceed and we’ll see how we go and how Mr. Minnick can aid
you at this point. I do understand he has that history, the Court also
understands you have requested the Court consider that as a mitigating
factor and that will clearly come up later in the hearing we will just see how
we go as the hearing proceeds and how Mr. Minnick is able to help you,
we’ll see how we do.
Tr. pp. 3-4.
Following the presentation of evidence, the trial court stated the following on the
record:
COURT: I first want to note for the record regarding the original issue
of competency that was raised by Defense, I’ve been
observing Mr. Minnick during this proceeding. He’s sat
calmly, he has aided counsel, asked questions, I believe that
his allocution statement was very clear and concise. He made
points to the court that I believe were appropriate. I have no
reason to believe he wasn’t competent to aid Counsel in this
hearing, so any concerns had or requests raised regarding that
I am going to deny. I think that he was competent for this
hearing and appropriately aided counsel in his defense. I
want to make that statement for the record.
Tr. p. 64. The trial court sentenced Minnick to sixty years of incarceration for murder,
fifty years for robbery, and fifty years for rape, all sentences to run consecutively. For
purposes of imposing enhanced sentences, the trial court found, as aggravating
circumstances, Minnick’s criminal record, his escape from jail after his arrest, and that
Payne was killed in her home. The trial court found Minnick’s mental illness to be a
mitigating circumstance. In justifying the imposition of consecutive sentences, the trial
court also found it to be aggravating that the injury, loss, or damage suffered by Payne
was greater than required to prove the crimes charged.
DISCUSSION AND DECISION
5
I. Whether the Trial Court Erred in Imposing Sentences for Robbery and Rape
A. Indiana Code Section 35-4.1-4-2
In 1981, Indiana Code section 35-4.1-4-2 (and now its successor statute, section
35-38-1-2) required that a trial court sentence within thirty days of the entry of
conviction. Minnick was not sentenced for his robbery or rape convictions for over
twenty-five years following his convictions. As the Indiana Supreme Court has held,
however, ―trial courts are excused from exact compliance with the thirty-day sentencing
requirement where there is good cause for delay and that such cause may be presumed
where the record is silent as to the reason for the delay and the defendant made no
objection.‖ McElroy v. State, 553 N.E.2d 835, 840 (Ind. 1990) (citing Kindred v. State,
524 N.E.2d 279, 302 (Ind. 1988)). Here, there was no objection and the trial court gave
no reason for not sentencing Minnick for rape or robbery. Pursuant to McElroy, we will
presume good cause, thereby excusing the trial court from adherence to the thirty-day
requirement.
Even if we had concluded that the trial court committed error in this regard, it
could only have been considered harmless. The rationale for the rule that a defendant is
entitled to have his sentence pronounced with reasonable promptness, as stated by the
Indiana Supreme Court, is that ―[a]n American citizen is entitled to live without a
Damocles sword dangling over his head.‖ Taylor v. State, 233 Ind. 398, 402, 120 N.E.2d
165, 167 (1954). This rationale has no application here, though, because Minnick spent
the entire delay period incarcerated, most of it under a sentence of death. This was not a
case where Minnick was a free man unable to live his life, plan for the future, or
6
otherwise find repose due to the looming threat of incarceration. It is hard to imagine,
and Minnick does not claim, that while sitting on death row he was ever troubled by the
fact that he had never been sentenced for rape and robbery but someday might be.
B. Right to Speedy Sentencing
Minnick also contends that his constitutional right to speedy sentencing was
violated by the delay. The Sixth Amendment to the United States Constitution provides,
inter alia, that ―[i]n all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a
speedy and public trial[.]‖ U.S. CONST. amend. VI. As with the Seventh Circuit Court of
Appeals, we shall assume, without deciding, that the Sixth Amendment right to speedy
trial applies to sentencing. See U.S. v. Rothrock, 20 F.3d 709, 711 (7th Cir. 1994). Also
like the Seventh Circuit, we will analyze the question using the considerations described
in Barker v. Wingo, 470 U.S. 514 (1972):
The right to a speedy trial is a vague concept, incapable of precise
evaluation. Barker v. Wingo, 407 U.S. 514, 521, 92 S. Ct. 2182, 2187, 33
L. Ed. 2d 101 (1972). In determining whether the right has been violated,
we start by examining the length of delay; ―[u]ntil there is some delay
which is presumptively prejudicial, there is no necessity for inquiry into the
other factors that go into the balance…. [T]he length of delay that will
provoke such an inquiry is necessarily dependent upon the peculiar
circumstances of the case.‖ Id. at 530-31, 92 S.Ct. at 2192. (footnote
omitted). Once a sufficient delay has been identified, the reason for the
delay must be examined and the defendant’s assertion of the right is
considered. Id. at 531, 92 S.Ct. at 2192. Finally, we determine whether the
defendant has been prejudiced. Prejudice is gauged by considering the
interests the right is designed to protect: ―(i) to prevent oppressive pretrial
incarceration; (ii) to minimize anxiety and concern of the accused; and (iii)
to limit the possibility that defense will be impaired.‖ Id. at 532, 92 S.Ct. at
2193 (footnote omitted).
Rothrock, 20 F.3d at 711-12.
7
Under the admittedly unusual circumstances of this case, we cannot conclude that
even the twenty-five-year delay in sentencing violated Minnick’s right to speedy
sentencing. While the delay was quite lengthy, there is no indication in the record that it
was the result of any objectionable actions by the State or trial court, and Minnick never
asserted his right to be sentenced at the time or at any time before his death sentence was
vacated and resentencing ordered in 2004.
Most importantly, however, there is no indication that Minnick was unfairly
prejudiced by the delay. Minnick argues that what occurred here is equivalent to
arbitrarily ordering a released defendant back to court for an additional sentence. We do
not agree. As previously mentioned, Minnick has been incarcerated since 1981,4 and
therefore had no ―Damocles sword‖ hanging over his head. Minnick also notes that, if
his sentences for rape and robbery had been imposed in 1985 and ordered to run
concurrently with his death sentence, they would have been discharged by now. While
this may be true, there is absolutely no indication whatsoever in the record that the
sentences would have been imposed in this fashion, and Minnick cites no authority that
such a sentence would have been required. Minnick has failed to establish that his right
to speedy sentencing has been violated.5
II. Whether Minnick’s Convictions for Murder and Class A Felony
Robbery Violate Prohibitions Against Double Jeopardy
4
Obviously, Minnick is entitled to credit for the time he has spent incarcerated in connection
with this case.
5
Minnick contends that sentencing him now for rape and robbery ―represents a blatant violation
of concepts of fundamental fairness.‖ Appellant’s Br. p. 21. In our view, it would violate concepts of
fundamental fairness far more if Minnick were allowed to avoid punishment for rape and robbery as an
unintended consequence of having his death sentence overturned.
8
Minnick contends, and the State concedes, that his convictions for murder and
Class A felony robbery violate prohibitions against double jeopardy. Minnick’s robbery
conviction was a class A felony because it resulted in serious bodily injury. See Ind.
Code § 35-42-5-1. However, ―where a single act forms the basis of both a Class A felony
robbery conviction and also the act element of the murder conviction, the two cannot
stand.‖ Gross v. State, 769 N.E.2d 1136, 1139 (Ind. 2002) (citing Kingery v. State, 659
N.E.2d 490, 495-96 (Ind. 1995)). The stab wound in Payne’s back that caused her death
was also the serious bodily injury alleged in the robbery count. As such, we remand with
instructions to reduce Minnick’s robbery conviction to a Class B felony robbery.
The State argues that we should order the imposition of a maximum sentence of
twenty years for Minnick’s robbery conviction and also that it be served consecutively to
his other sentences, as opposed to remanding for resentencing. Under the circumstances
of this case, we agree that such a disposition is warranted. Minnick does not contend that
the trial court abused its discretion in imposing maximum sentences (for rape and
robbery) or that the sentences be served consecutively, nor does he contend that his
sentence was inappropriately harsh. Moreover, all of the aggravating circumstances that
the trial court cited in imposing a maximum and consecutive sentence for the Class A
robbery apply with equal force to a Class B robbery. Cases involving the affirmance of a
sentence despite the use of erroneous aggravators lend support to our disposition. It is
well-settled that ―[w]here a trial court has used an erroneous aggravator, as occurred here,
the court on appeal can nevertheless affirm the sentence if it can say with confidence that
the same sentence is appropriate without it.‖ Witmer v. State, 800 N.E.2d 571, 572-73
9
(Ind. 2003). In this case, we can say with confidence that a maximum and consecutive
sentence for the robbery would be eminently appropriate, no matter what felony class,
and so order that a twenty-year and consecutive sentence for robbery be imposed on
remand.
III. Whether the Trial Court Abused its Discretion in Denying
Minnick’s Request for a Competency Evaluation
Minnick contends that the trial court abused its discretion in denying his pre-
hearing request for a new competency evaluation.
We have previously determined that ―the conviction of an incompetent
defendant is a denial of federal due process and a denial of a state statutory
right as well.‖ Faris v. State, 901 N.E.2d 1123, 1125 (Ind. Ct. App. 2009).
A defendant is not competent to stand trial when he is unable to understand
the proceedings and assist in the preparation of his defense. Mast v. State,
914 N.E.2d 851, 856 (Ind. Ct. App. 2009), trans. denied.
….
However, the right to a competency hearing is not absolute. Mast,
914 N.E.2d at 856. Instead, such a hearing is required only when a trial
court is confronted with evidence creating a reasonable or bona fide doubt
as to a defendant’s competency. Id. The decision regarding whether there
is a reasonable doubt is within the trial court’s discretion and depends upon
the specific facts and circumstances of each case. Id. We will only reverse
the trial court’s decision if we find that the trial court has abused its
discretion. McManus v. State, 814 N.E.2d 253, 259-61 (Ind. 2004). The
trial court has abused its discretion when its decision is clearly against the
logic and effect of the facts and circumstances before the court or when the
trial court has misinterpreted the law. Stuff v. Simmons, 838 N.E.2d 1096,
1099 (Ind. Ct. App. 2005).
Gibbs v. State, 952 N.E.2d 214, 219 (Ind. Ct. App. 2011).
Minnick has failed to establish an abuse of discretion in this regard. The
Logansport State Hospital reported to the trial court on March 7, 2011, that Minnick was
again competent to assist in the preparation of his defense. Minnick was found capable
10
of working with counsel if he chose, disclosing pertinent facts, and testifying relevantly
and was appropriately motivated. Nothing in Minnick’s counsel’s remarks at sentencing
indicated that the assessment was no longer accurate.
In response to Minnick’s counsel’s request for a competency evaluation at the
beginning of the sentencing hearing, the trial court decided to proceed while making it
clear that the issue could be raised again at any time. As it happened, the hearing
proceeded to completion without any indication that Minnick was incompetent. When
the trial court observed that Minnick aiding counsel during the hearing and noted that his
allocution ―was very clear and concise[,]‖ Tr. p. 64, his counsel did not contradict these
statements or point to any indication that he was incompetent during the hearing. Indeed,
Minnick does not challenge the trial court’s observations on appeal or even claim that he
was actually incompetent during the hearing. At no point during the hearing was the trial
court faced with any bona fide evidence that Minnick was incompetent, and consequently
it did not abuse its discretion in failing to order another competency evaluation.6
CONCLUSION
We conclude that the trial court properly imposed sentences for Minnick’s robbery
and rape convictions. We further conclude that the trial court did not err in failing to
order another competency evaluation for Minnick. Minnick’s conviction for Class A
6
Minnick argues that the trial court committed procedural, but not substantive, error in not
ordering an evaluation at the beginning of the hearing, essentially arguing that Minnick’s actual
competence during the hearing is irrelevant. We cannot accept this distinction. As we stated in Gibbs,
―[t]he purpose of I.C. § 35–36–3–1(a) is to avoid the conviction of an incompetent defendant, so it
follows that an error is harmless where it does not result in the conviction of an incompetent defendant.‖
952 N.E.2d at 219. Given the uncontested evidence of Minnick’s competence during the hearing, any
procedural error the trial court may have made could only be considered harmless.
11
felony robbery, however, violates prohibitions against double jeopardy. We reverse in
part and remand with instructions for the trial court to reduce Minnick’s robbery
conviction to a Class B felony and impose a twenty-year sentence to run consecutively
with his sixty-year sentence for murder and his fifty-year sentence for Class A felony
rape, for a sum total sentence of 130 years executed.
The judgment of the trial court is affirmed in part and reversed and remanded in
part with instructions.
VAIDIK, J., and CRONE, J., concur.
12