Bunch v. State
937 N.E.2d 839
| Ind. Ct. App. | 2010Background
- Bunch was convicted by jury of robbery (Class B felony), burglary (Class B felony), ten counts of criminal confinement (Class B felonies), intimidation (Class C felony), and carrying a handgun without a license (Class A misdemeanor).
- The offenses arose from a March 14, 2009 home invasion in which two masked men, one armed with a sawed-off shotgun, robbed K.V. and confined seven children and K.V. for about two hours.
- Bunch was identified by a victim’s testimony and by appearance (Nike shoes) and clothing seen during the home invasion.
- The jury acquitted one count of criminal mischief; Bunch received an aggregate sentence of fifteen years executed, with one component serving consecutively for intimidation.
- On appeal, Bunch challenged double jeopardy, insufficiency of the evidence for several confinement counts, and the sentencing statement; the State defended the multiple convictions and sentences.
- The trial court’s sentencing included twelve-year terms for each Class B felony, three years for the intimidation conviction, with the latter running consecutively.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Double jeopardy: are the convictions proper? | Bunch asserts multiple convictions violate Indiana double jeopardy. | Bunch argues enhanced-conviction elements share the same conduct across offenses. | Some counts merge; others upheld and some vacated. |
| Sufficiency of evidence for confinement counts as to non-testifying victims | Evidence shows confinement of children despite lack of their testimony. | Lack of testifying children undermines distinct confinement elements. | Sufficient evidence supports confinement of four victims; others merged. |
| Detail of sentencing statement | Anglemyer requirements demand a detailed justification for aggravators/congregating factors. | The court’s statement insufficiently explains aggregation and consecutive-sentence rationale. | Court acted within discretion; no abuse found; however, counts XI and XII merged and vacated. |
Key Cases Cited
- Richardson v. State, 717 N.E.2d 32 (Ind.1999) (establishes actual-evidence test for Indiana double jeopardy)
- Spivey v. State, 761 N.E.2d 831 (Ind.2002) (clarifies application of Richardson actual-evidence approach)
- Miller v. State, 790 N.E.2d 437 (Ind.2003) (dual-use of weapon for multiple offenses not per se double jeopardy)
- Pierce v. State, 761 N.E.2d 826 (Ind.2002) (supplements constitutional double jeopardy law with common-law doctrine)
- Gates v. State, 759 N.E.2d 631 (Ind.2001) (weapon-use can enhance multiple offenses)
- Monroe v. State, 886 N.E.2d 578 (Ind.2008) (consecutive sentencing warranted by aggravation where appropriate)
- Bartlett v. State, 711 N.E.2d 497 (Ind.1999) (continuing-confinement doctrine defines span of detention)
- Hopkins v. State, 759 N.E.2d 633 (Ind.2001) (confirms confinement may exceed minimal robbery scope)