Christian A. Stewart v. State of Indiana (mem. dec.), 19A-CR-411

Background

On May 16, 2017, Christian Stewart, his girlfriend Kelsey (Luellen), and his brother Cameron traveled together in a red pickup to a remote area; burglary tools and two loaded handguns were found in the truck. Baumgartner’s gate and cabin were broken into; a tractor was damaged. Bruegge’s farmhouse was later found ransacked; Cameron was later apprehended there with a loaded handgun.
Stewart approached a neighboring homeowner’s shop appearing out of breath and carrying a handgun concealed in his shirt; he directed an ATV down a lane toward Baumgartner’s property and acted nervously when others found the tipped tractor and broken cabin.
Neighbors restrained Stewart until police arrived; his gun was secured and later linked by its case to the pickup. Items stolen from Baumgartner’s property were recovered in the truck along with Stewart’s ID.
Stewart was charged with conspiracy to commit armed burglary (Level 2) and unlawful possession of a firearm by a serious violent felon (Level 4) among other counts; jury convicted him of conspiracy, and he pled guilty to the firearm count.
The trial court imposed consecutive maximum terms: 30 years (Level 2) + 12 years (Level 4) = 42 years aggregate, citing several aggravators including Stewart’s violent, rule‑breaking jail conduct; Stewart appealed challenging sufficiency and sentence.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (State)	Defendant's Argument (Stewart)	Held
Sufficiency of evidence to convict Stewart of conspiracy to commit burglary	Circumstantial evidence (joint travel, burglary tools and weapons in truck, stolen property in truck linked to Stewart, Stewart’s conduct and statements, overt acts at scenes) supports jury inference of agreement and overt act	No direct proof Stewart entered or agreed to burglarize; conviction rests on proximity and sibling relationship; items in truck could be attributable solely to Luellen	Affirmed. The jury could reasonably infer an agreement and overt acts from circumstantial evidence; sufficiency upheld
Appropriateness of 42‑year aggregate sentence	Sentence justified by nature of offenses (armed burglaries, property damage, threats) and offender’s character (prior felony, juvenile history, parole status, severe jail violence and rule violations)	Sentence excessive: no proof of intent to cause bodily harm; offenses involved rummaging through unoccupied cabins; Stewart young and had difficult upbringing	Affirmed. Court gave deference to trial court; nature of crimes and significant negative character evidence (criminal history, violent jail behavior) do not make sentence inappropriate

Key Cases Cited

Dickenson v. State, 835 N.E.2d 542 (Ind. Ct. App.) (standard of review for sufficiency of evidence)
Davis v. State, 791 N.E.2d 266 (Ind. Ct. App.) (circumstantial evidence may support conviction)
Maul v. State, 731 N.E.2d 438 (Ind.) (circumstantial evidence rule)
Weida v. State, 778 N.E.2d 843 (Ind. Ct. App.) (inference of agreement suffices for conspiracy)
Erkins v. State, 13 N.E.3d 400 (Ind.) (agreement and intent may be inferred from circumstantial evidence)
Survance v. State, 465 N.E.2d 1076 (Ind.) (same)
Craig v. State, 730 N.E.2d 1262 (Ind.) (conviction need not exclude every reasonable hypothesis of innocence)
Cardwell v. State, 895 N.E.2d 1219 (Ind.) (appellate deference in sentencing review)
Stephenson v. State, 29 N.E.3d 111 (Ind.) (factors weighing against appellate revision of sentence)
Childress v. State, 848 N.E.2d 1073 (Ind.) (burden on defendant to show sentence inappropriate)
Croy v. State, 953 N.E.2d 660 (Ind. Ct. App.) (nature of offense and offender participation inform appropriateness)
Sanders v. State, 71 N.E.3d 839 (Ind. Ct. App.) (relevance of criminal history to offender character)
Garcia v. State, 47 N.E.3d 1249 (Ind. Ct. App.) (significance of prior offenses varies by gravity and relation)
Bethea v. State, 983 N.E.2d 1134 (Ind.) (difficult childhood has little mitigating weight)
Ritchie v. State, 875 N.E.2d 706 (Ind.) (same)
Bryant v. State, 984 N.E.2d 240 (Ind. Ct. App.) (same)
Barker v. State, 994 N.E.2d 306 (Ind. Ct. App.) (appellate inquiry limited to whether sentence is inappropriate)