Adrian Anthony v. State of Indiana
2016 Ind. App. LEXIS 225
| Ind. Ct. App. | 2016Background
- On October 29, 2013, Adrian Anthony and five co-defendants entered a occupied home, armed and wearing gloves, ransacked the house, shot victim E.P. twice, and stole vehicles and other property.
- During the invasion A.P. and E.P. were sexually assaulted by multiple participants; Anthony personally sexually assaulted E.P. in a vehicle and touched A.P. when he later drove her to an ATM.
- Anthony was tried jointly with several co-defendants, convicted on multiple counts (including rapes, criminal deviate conduct, robbery, carjacking, and burglary), and the trial court imposed consecutive and concurrent terms producing an aggregate sentence initially calculated at 298 years.
- Anthony challenged (1) sufficiency of evidence as to four sex-offense counts involving A.P. under accomplice liability, (2) double jeopardy as to two rape convictions of A.P., and (3) the aggregate sentence as inappropriate under App. R. 7(B).
- The court affirmed convictions for the A.P. counts on accomplice liability grounds, rejected the double jeopardy challenge to the two rape convictions (finding separate rapes by different perpetrators), but reduced one enhancement: robbery (Count XVIII) downgraded from class A to class B, lowering the aggregate sentence to 268 years.
Issues
| Issue | State's Argument | Anthony's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sufficiency of evidence for A.P. sex counts under accomplice liability | All six acted in concert; sexual assault was a probable and natural consequence of the violent home invasion | No common plan; Anthony was not present during assaults on A.P. and could not have aided them | Evidence sufficient: presence, companionship, coordinated conduct, and contemporaneous sexual assaults supported accomplice liability |
| Double jeopardy for two rape counts of A.P. | Counts alleged different locations/times; separate rapes occurred by different men | Jury may have used same facts for both convictions; duplicative punishment violates double jeopardy | No double jeopardy: actual-evidence test failed because distinct rapes and different evidentiary facts supported each count |
| Sentence inappropriate under App. R. 7(B) | Sentence reflects violence, leadership role, prior record, and risk to reoffend | Sentence is effectively life for a 20-year-old; prior record not on par with homicide; request for reduction | Aggregate sentence not inappropriate given nature of offenses and offender, but one enhancement reversed reducing aggregate term to 268 years |
| Enhancement for robbery and burglary based on same injury | State did not challenge on appeal | Anthony did not raise issue, but court noted problem | Court reduced robbery Count XVIII from class A to B because the same bodily injury cannot enhance both convictions |
Key Cases Cited
- Brasher v. State, 746 N.E.2d 71 (Ind. 2001) (standard for sufficiency review)
- Dillard v. State, 755 N.E.2d 1085 (Ind. 2001) (substantial-evidence standard)
- Griffin v. State, 16 N.E.3d 997 (Ind. Ct. App. 2014) (accomplice liability and natural/probable-consequence principles)
- Lothamer v. State, 44 N.E.3d 819 (Ind. Ct. App. 2015) (accomplice culpability principles)
- Castillo v. State, 974 N.E.2d 458 (Ind. 2012) (no bright-line rule for accomplice liability; facts control)
- Tuggle v. State, 9 N.E.3d 726 (Ind. Ct. App. 2014) (factors for accomplice liability: presence, companionship, failure to oppose, course of conduct)
- Cleary v. State, 23 N.E.3d 664 (Ind. 2015) (separate rapes can support separate convictions without double jeopardy)
- Hopkins v. State, 759 N.E.2d 633 (Ind. 2001) (double jeopardy prevents successive prosecutions for same transgression)
- Richardson v. State, 717 N.E.2d 32 (Ind. 1999) (elements/actual-evidence test for same-offense double jeopardy analysis)
- Hines v. State, 30 N.E.3d 1216 (Ind. 2015) (actual-evidence reasonable-possibility standard)
- Lee v. State, 892 N.E.2d 1231 (Ind. 2008) (sources to determine facts used by jury include charging info, instructions, and counsel arguments)
- Spivey v. State, 761 N.E.2d 831 (Ind. 2002) (procedural guidance on actual-evidence inquiry)
- Smith v. State, 872 N.E.2d 169 (Ind. Ct. App. 2007) (same bodily injury cannot be used to enhance two separate convictions)
- Childress v. State, 848 N.E.2d 1073 (Ind. 2006) (App. R. 7(B) burden and standard for revising sentences)
- Wright v. State, 916 N.E.2d 269 (Ind. Ct. App. 2009) (combined long-term sentences may still be terms of years with theoretical parole possibility)