Dejuan R. Wells v. State of Indiana (mem. dec.)
29A05-1610-CR-2273
| Ind. Ct. App. | Jun 23, 2017Background
- On July 16, 2015, Fishers police stopped a GMC Yukon driven by Dejuan R. Wells because the temporary license plate was obscured and not clearly legible from the statutorily required distance; officers detected the odor of raw marijuana.
- A police K-9 alerted at the driver’s front door; a search revealed a duffle with multiple bags of marijuana, scales, and other indicia of distribution; officers found pills (some oxycodone) and cash on Wells and large sums of cash and phones in the passenger’s possession.
- Wells was charged with multiple drug and related counts and the State sought a habitual-offender enhancement; several pretrial suppression motions had earlier succeeded as to unrelated searches, but the motion to suppress evidence from the traffic stop was denied.
- A jury convicted Wells of Level 5 felony dealing in marijuana and Level 6 felony possession of a narcotic drug; he waived a jury for the habitual-offender phase, and the trial court found him a habitual offender.
- The trial court sentenced Wells to an aggregate 10 years (five years for the Level 5 conviction plus a five-year habitual enhancement), with the last two years to be served in community corrections. Wells appealed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (State) | Defendant's Argument (Wells) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1. Admissibility of evidence from traffic stop/search | Stop was lawful because officer legitimately could not read plate from required distance and smelled marijuana; K-9 alert justified search and seizure | Stop was impermissible; court misinterpreted evidence about plate visibility, shifted burden, and deferred admissibility to jury | Court affirmed admission: officer’s testimony supported stop; no burden-shift; court properly ruled; K-9 and odor supported search |
| 2. Sufficiency of evidence for habitual-offender finding | Judicially noticed court records and identifiers established Wells’ prior felony convictions | Identity not proven beyond reasonable doubt due to minor discrepancies (date of birth) | Affirmed: small DOB discrepancy was likely a scrivener’s error; other identifiers and case records proved prior convictions beyond a reasonable doubt |
| 3. Refusal to give defendant’s lesser-included offense jury instruction | Defendant’s tendered instruction was legally correct and should have allowed jury to convict of Level 6 rather than Level 5 | Instruction was incomplete and did not explain the role of a lesser included offense or how to convict of the lesser offense | Affirmed: trial court properly rejected the instruction as an incorrect/incomplete statement of law (and oral amendment was not properly tendered in writing) |
| 4. Sentencing discretion (consideration of suppressed evidence) | Trial court may consider suppressed/excluded evidence at sentencing; aggravators supported by record | Consideration of evidence suppressed pretrial was improper and requires resentencing (or reconsideration of Walker) | Affirmed: Walker controls; courts may consider suppressed evidence at sentencing; aggravators (criminal history and suppressed-evidence facts) supported sentence |
Key Cases Cited
- Jackson v. State, 890 N.E.2d 11 (Ind. Ct. App. 2008) (standard of review for evidentiary rulings)
- Guilmette v. State, 14 N.E.3d 38 (Ind. 2014) (de novo review for constitutional search and seizure questions)
- Wright v. State, 658 N.E.2d 563 (Ind. 1995) (three-part test for lesser included-offense instructions)
- Horton v. State, 51 N.E.3d 1154 (Ind. 2016) (judicial notice of court records and Odyssey CMS)
- Walker v. State, 503 N.E.2d 883 (Ind. 1987) (suppressed evidence may be considered at sentencing)
- Anglemyer v. State, 868 N.E.2d 482 (Ind. 2007) (standards for reviewing sentencing discretion)