Albert Webb v. State of Indiana (mem. dec.)
20A05-1604-CR-1001
| Ind. Ct. App. | Feb 14, 2017Background
- December 14, 2013: Webb and three others planned and executed an armed robbery of MC Sporting Goods; they stole 47 guns and used masks, painter suits, zip ties, and a handgun.
- Webb supplied the handgun, zip ties, painter suits, directed the robbery, forced employees/customers at gunpoint, and ordered his girlfriend not to let police into her apartment after the robbery.
- Co-defendant Shaquan Moorer testified (under use immunity) that Webb was the mastermind and the armed participant; Moorer’s and Webb’s DNA were found on a recovered gas mask; other physical evidence and witnesses corroborated parts of the scheme.
- Webb was charged with two counts of robbery (Class B felonies), five counts of criminal confinement (Class B felonies), and one count of conspiracy to commit robbery (Class B felony); a jury convicted him on all counts.
- The trial court imposed consecutive and concurrent terms totaling 58 years’ imprisonment; Webb appealed challenging sufficiency, jury instructions, double jeopardy, sentencing errors, and sentence appropriateness.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sufficiency of the evidence | State: Moorer’s trial testimony plus corroborating physical and circumstantial evidence support convictions. | Webb: Evidence insufficient to show he was a perpetrator; Moorer’s testimony unreliable. | Affirmed — reasonable jury could find guilt beyond a reasonable doubt; co-defendant testimony corroborated and jury properly weighed credibility. |
| Jury instructions (mens rea) | State: Charging information alleged only "knowing" mens rea, so instruction properly tracked the charge. | Webb: Court erred by instructing only on "knowing" and not "intentional." | Affirmed — no reversible error; Webb invited waiver by expressly approving instructions and State alleged only "knowing." |
| Double jeopardy (robbery vs. conspiracy) | State: Conspiracy alleged overt act (donning painter suit) distinct from robbery elements; separate convictions permissible. | Webb: Convictions overlap under the actual evidence test; same evidentiary facts used for both offenses. | Affirmed — no double jeopardy violation; evidentiary footprints for the offenses were not identical. |
| Sentencing (errors and appropriateness) | State: Trial court reasonably relied on multiple valid aggravators; sentence within statutory range and supported by facts. | Webb: Court relied on improper aggravators; sentence inappropriate given his character and offense. | Affirmed — even excluding contested aggravators, sufficient valid aggravators remain; 58-year aggregate sentence not inappropriate. |
Key Cases Cited
- Gray v. State, 957 N.E.2d 171 (Ind. 2011) (standard for reviewing sufficiency of the evidence)
- Bailey v. State, 907 N.E.2d 1003 (Ind. 2009) (affirming conviction if reasonable jury could find guilt beyond a reasonable doubt)
- Stephenson v. State, 742 N.E.2d 463 (Ind. 2001) (co‑defendant testimony can, alone, sustain conviction; credibility for jury)
- Moore v. State, 27 N.E.3d 749 (Ind. 2015) (limits and prerequisites for applying the incredible‑dubiosity rule)
- Hill v. State, 51 N.E.3d 446 (Ind. Ct. App. 2016) (invited error doctrine bars relief where defendant approved instructions)
- Matthews v. State, 849 N.E.2d 578 (Ind. 2006) (fundamental error standard)
- Brewington v. State, 7 N.E.3d 946 (Ind. 2014) (invited error does not constitute fundamental error)
- Berg v. State, 45 N.E.3d 506 (Ind. Ct. App. 2015) (actual evidence test for double jeopardy)
- Estrada v. State, 969 N.E.2d 1032 (Ind. Ct. App. 2012) (no double jeopardy where conspiracy overt act differs from robbery act)
- Bethea v. State, 983 N.E.2d 1134 (Ind. 2013) (remand for resentencing necessary only if we cannot say court would have imposed same sentence without invalid aggravators)
- Coy v. State, 999 N.E.2d 937 (Ind. Ct. App. 2013) (single valid aggravator can justify sentence enhancement)
- Knapp v. State, 9 N.E.3d 1274 (Ind. 2014) (standard for appellate review of sentence appropriateness)
- Chambers v. State, 989 N.E.2d 1257 (Ind. 2013) (clarifying appellate role in revising sentences)