Chappell v. State
966 N.E.2d 124
Ind. Ct. App.2012Background
- Chappell was convicted in Wayne Superior Court of Class A felony burglary causing bodily injury, Class B felony burglary of a dwelling, Class D felony battery, and admitted habitual offender status; trial found guilty on Counts I, II, IV, V and acquitted on Count III; habitual offender enhancement added 30 years to Count I, totaling 70 years with other counts concurrent.
- The home invasion occurred in September 2010 at a Richmond, Indiana residence rented to Dinashia Bee and inhabited by Bee with her mother and siblings; Bee retained possession while Wilkerson and Chappell broke in with Wilkerson knife, Heather Jones attempted to flee, was stabbed, and Heather and Maurice Jones identified Wilkerson and Chappell as attackers.
- Chappell and Wilkerson broke into the home at night; Heather was stabbed in the arm and later in the hip; Chappell helped block Heather’s escape and attempted to strike Maurice; police responded, injuries treated, and victims positively identified the suspects.
- The State charged five counts (I–V) including Class A burglary resulting in bodily injury and Class B burglary of a dwelling, with Counts I, II, IV, V tried; the jury convicted I, II, IV, V and acquitted III; Chappell admitted habitual offender status.
- March 4, 2011, the trial court imposed 40 years on Count I, 10 years on Count II, 4 years on Count IV, vacated Count V as double jeopardy, and added a 30-year habitual offender enhancement to Count I for an aggregate 70-year sentence; post-trial motions were denied and an appeal followed.
- On appeal, the court addressed sufficiency of the evidence for burglary, double jeopardy concerns, and sentencing; the court ultimately vacated the Class B burglary conviction and remanded for sentence vacatur while affirming the remaining judgments and sentence as not inappropriate
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sufficiency of evidence for burglary conviction | State argues sufficient evidence supports burglary | Chappell contends insufficient to prove burglary | Sufficient evidence for Class A burglary; double jeopardy issue addressed separately |
| Double jeopardy of Class A and Class B burglary | State contends no issue; not argued on appeal | Chappell argues multiple convictions improper | Convictions for Class A burglary and Class B burglary were impermissibly duplicative; Class B burglary vacated and sentence vacated accordingly |
| Sentencing not inappropriate | State supports aggregate 70 years given offense and history | Chappell argues sentence disproportionate | Aggregate sentence of 70 years not inappropriate under Rule 7(B) balancing nature and character; affirmed in part, not inappropriate |
| Habitual offender enhancement impact | Enhancement increases severity | Argument not dispositive to propriety | Enhancement properly applied; does not render sentence inappropriate overall |
Key Cases Cited
- Butler v. State, 478 N.E.2d 126 (Ind.Ct.App. 1985) (possession suffices for burglary element)
- Jewell v. State, 672 N.E.2d 417 (Ind. Ct. App. 1996) (entry unauthorized satisfies 'of another' dwelling)
- Keel v. State, 333 N.E.2d 328 (Ind. Ct. App. 1975) (dwelling element considerations in burglary)
- Freshwater v. State, 853 N.E.2d 941 (Ind. 2006) (intent to commit a felony inferred from circumstances nearby break-in)
- Mull v. State, 770 N.E.2d 308 (Ind. 2002) (intent may be inferred from subsequent conduct inside the premises)
- Gee v. State, 526 N.E.2d 1152 (Ind. 1988) (intent to commit felony may not be inferred from breaking and entering alone)
- Richardson v. State, 717 N.E.2d 32 (Ind. 1999) ( Richardson statutory elements test for double jeopardy)
- Lee v. State, 892 N.E.2d 1231 (Ind. 2008) (Richardson actual evidence test clarification; double jeopardy analysis guide)
- Alexander v. State, 768 N.E.2d 971 (Ind. Ct. App. 2002) (actual evidence test applied to two burglary convictions)
- Spivey v. State, 761 N.E.2d 831 (Ind. 2002) (double jeopardy principles in multi-offense context)