Allen v. State
2011 Ind. App. LEXIS 1855
| Ind. Ct. App. | 2011Background
- In 2009, police investigated a non-fatal heroin overdose at Patterson and Haenny's apartment and found Allen in the area.
- Allen admitted visiting the apartment and acknowledged heroin-related activity; investigators observed track marks consistent with IV drug use.
- In 2010, Allen pled guilty to Class B misdemeanor visiting a common nuisance in Cause CM-407 and was sentenced to 180 days suspended to probation.
- During a deposition in 2010, Haenny stated Allen helped obtain heroin for her; this led to a separate charge in Cause FA-2 for heroin dealing within 1000 feet of a park.
- Allen moved to dismiss FA-2 after pleading in CM-407; the trial court denied, and an interlocutory appeal followed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether FA-2 is barred by the Successive Prosecution Statute | Allen should have been charged in CM-407 for related conduct. | FA-2 involves a different charge arising from a separate but connected act set; should have been joined. | Yes; FA-2 barred as part of a single scheme that should have been charged together. |
| Whether the charges were part of a single scheme or plan | Different charges stem from distinct acts after the chemical event. | Actions were connected by a common motive and conduct toward selling heroin. | They were parts of a single plan and should have been joined in one prosecution. |
Key Cases Cited
- Williams v. State, 762 N.E.2d 1216 (Ind. 2002) (charges tied to a single scheme may require joinder)
- Haywood v. State, 875 N.E.2d 770 (Ind.Ct.App. 2007) (reaffirmed interpretation of successive-prosecution doctrine)
- Wiggins v. State, 661 N.E.2d 878 (Ind.Ct.App. 1996) (joinder principles for multiple offenses)
- Henderson v. State, 647 N.E.2d 7 (Ind.Ct.App. 1995) (factors for linking offenses into a single scheme)