Brandon Black v. State of Indiana
2017 Ind. App. LEXIS 288
| Ind. Ct. App. | 2017Background
- Victim Sanjay Amin, a Super 8 Motel employee, was beaten and robbed in a Manor Motel room in January 2015; he suffered serious injuries (including loss of teeth).
- Two suspects, Christopher Brown and Brandon Black, were known to Amin and were seen with the victim’s companion, Ashley Reinholt, earlier that day. Amin identified them later the same night in a police show‑up outside the Super 8.
- Original charges led to a joint jury trial in February 2016 that ended in a mistrial; the State then filed amended informations upgrading and expanding charges in February 2016 (and again just before the July trial).
- Black’s counsel was not present at a February 29, 2016 hearing where the amended information was discussed; counsel had represented Black for over a year before and after that hearing.
- At the July 2016 trial the court admitted Amin’s show‑up identification over objection; the jury convicted Black of Level 2 felony conspiracy to commit robbery (resulting in serious bodily injury) and Level 2 felony robbery (resulting in serious bodily injury). He was sentenced to consecutive 30‑year terms (60 years aggregate).
- On appeal the court addressed (1) right to counsel at the February 29 hearing, (2) admissibility of the show‑up ID, and (3) whether both Level 2 convictions violated double jeopardy; the court affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded (reducing the robbery conviction to a Level 5 felony and resentencing that count to 6 years consecutive to the conspiracy term).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (State) | Defendant's Argument (Black) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Right to counsel at Feb. 29, 2016 hearing on amended information | Hearing was an initial/administrative proceeding not requiring counsel | Hearing was a critical stage because it amended charges to more serious offenses and counsel was absent | Hearing was a critical stage; counsel was denied, but error was harmless because defense had notice and five months to prepare and did not object |
| Fundamental error in court approving amendments (dismissal of original charges without formal motion) | Amendments were proper and not prejudicial; no manipulation | State improperly manipulated charges and deprived Black of notice/rights | Procedural handling was imperfect but did not rise to fundamental error; defendant received a fair trial |
| Admissibility of show‑up identification of Black by Amin | Identification reliable and admissible; even if suggestive, independent basis existed | Show‑up was unduly suggestive and tainted in‑court ID | Show‑up arguably suggestive given time elapsed, but admission was harmless: Amin knew Black from prior observations and Reinholt also identified him |
| Double jeopardy from enhanced conspiracy and robbery convictions both relying on same serious bodily injury | Convictions stand (initially contested) | Same injury (knocked out teeth) was used to enhance both counts, violating double jeopardy | State concedes violation; robbery conviction reduced to Level 5 and resentenced to 6 years consecutive to conspiracy term |
Key Cases Cited
- Hernandez v. State, 761 N.E.2d 845 (Ind. 2002) (counsel required at critical stages; harmless‑error framework)
- Rushen v. Spain, 464 U.S. 114 (U.S. 1983) (presumption of prejudice for denial of counsel but subject to harmless‑error analysis)
- Mannix v. State, 54 N.E.3d 1002 (Ind. Ct. App. 2016) (time between amendment and trial relevant to opportunity to prepare)
- Benson v. State, 762 N.E.2d 748 (Ind. 2002) (fundamental error doctrine narrow)
- Jewell v. State, 887 N.E.2d 939 (Ind. 2008) (definition and limits of fundamental error)
- Absher v. State, 866 N.E.2d 350 (Ind. Ct. App. 2007) (purpose of charging information: notice and double‑jeopardy protection)
- Blyth v. State, 14 N.E.3d 823 (Ind. Ct. App. 2014) (amendments do not violate rights if defendant had reasonable opportunity to prepare)
- Rasnick v. State, 2 N.E.3d 17 (Ind. Ct. App. 2013) (totality‑of‑circumstances test for show‑up identifications and independent basis inquiry)
- Gordon v. State, 981 N.E.2d 1215 (Ind. Ct. App. 2013) (in‑court ID may be admissible if independent basis exists)
- Dillard v. State, 274 N.E.2d 387 (Ind. 1971) (definition and concerns about show‑up identifications)
- Hubbell v. State, 754 N.E.2d 884 (Ind. 2001) (show‑ups can be impermissibly suggestive under certain circumstances)
- Richardson v. State, 717 N.E.2d 32 (Ind. 1999) (double jeopardy test: statutory elements and actual evidence; remedy by reducing conviction)
- Pierce v. State, 761 N.E.2d 826 (Ind. 2002) (same bodily injury cannot be used to elevate two separate convictions)
- Young v. State, 57 N.E.3d 857 (Ind. Ct. App. 2016) (appellate courts may adjust sentences when remedying double jeopardy without full resentencing)