Andrew S. Raines v. State of Indiana (mem.dec.)
86A05-1705-CR-965
| Ind. Ct. App. | Oct 31, 2017Background
- On Dec. 19, 2016 Andrew S. Raines took Sean Ingram’s Subaru from a residence during an altercation; the car (and Raines) were found in St. Louis eight days later. Raines was charged with Level 6 felony auto theft (Count I) and two Class B misdemeanor false informing counts (Counts II–III).
- Raines pleaded guilty to the two false informing misdemeanors; a jury convicted him of Level 6 auto theft after trial focused on whether Ingram consented to Raines using the car.
- At sentencing the trial court orally announced a two‑year sentence to the Department of Correction (DOC) and concurrent 180‑day misdemeanor terms; the written judgment instead ordered two years in the Warren County Jail.
- The trial court later denied Raines’s motion to correct sentence, explaining post‑sentencing that Indiana Code § 35‑38‑3‑3 (as amended) generally bars commitment of Level 6 felons to DOC and thus the written order correctly placed Raines in county jail.
- Raines also challenged prosecutor’s rebuttal comments (arguing witnesses had “no motive to lie”) as improper vouching; he did not object at trial, so he raised fundamental‑error review on appeal.
- The Court of Appeals affirmed: (1) no abuse of discretion in jail placement given the statutory prohibition on committing most Level 6 felons to DOC; and (2) Raines failed to show prosecutorial misconduct rose to fundamental error.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Proper place of incarceration (DOC v. county jail) | State: sentencing must comply with statute; placement governed by law not oral dicta | Raines: oral pronouncement at sentencing said DOC; written order placed him in county jail — court erred | Affirmed: trial court corrected its oral misstatement; statute bars committing most Level 6 felons to DOC, so county jail sentence not an abuse of discretion |
| Prosecutorial vouching in rebuttal | State: rebuttal permissible to counter defense suggestion that witnesses lied; prosecutor may argue witnesses had no reason to lie | Raines: prosecutor vouched for State’s witnesses, implying they wouldn’t be in trouble for testifying truthfully; prejudicial misconduct | Affirmed: no contemporaneous objection; Raines did not meet narrow fundamental‑error standard showing trial was rendered unfair |
Key Cases Cited
- Barker v. State, 994 N.E.2d 306 (Ind. Ct. App. 2013) (sentence within statutory range reviewed for abuse of discretion)
- Clark v. State, 727 N.E.2d 18 (Ind. Ct. App. 2000) (trial court generally loses jurisdiction after appeal is perfected; limited exceptions exist)
- Ryan v. State, 9 N.E.3d 663 (Ind. 2014) (explains narrow fundamental‑error standard for prosecutorial misconduct claims)
- Booher v. State, 773 N.E.2d 814 (Ind. 2002) (procedural default requires showing fundamental error to raise unpreserved prosecutorial‑misconduct claim)
- Watkins v. State, 869 N.E.2d 497 (Ind. Ct. App. 2007) (subject matter jurisdiction is nonwaivable and courts must consider it sua sponte)