Estrada v. State, 969 N.E.2d 1032

Estrada, then seventeen, was convicted of two counts of Class B armed robbery as an accomplice and one count of Class C conspiracy for robberies in May 2009.
The robberies involved three 7-Elevens and a Huck’s gas station in Elkhart County; Estrada drove the group to each site and money was obtained from each theft.
The group’s activities were later linked through a police interview in which Estrada admitted involvement; the interview occurred after juvenile advisement and Spanish translation for her mother.
Estrada moved to dismiss, arguing that juvenile adjudications barred the current charges under a successive-prosecution theory; the trial court denied the motion.
At trial, Estrada unsuccessfully moved to suppress her police statement; the jury found her guilty on all counts and the court imposed a 24-year aggregate sentence.
Estrada appeals on four main issues: dismissal, suppression of the statement, double jeopardy, and sentence propriety.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the trial court abused its discretion by denying dismissal	Estrada argues charges barred by succession statute should have dismissed	State contends juvenile proceedings civil; not barred or should not be dismissed	Court denied dismissal; no abuse based on jurisdiction and joinder analysis
Whether admission of Estrada's police statement was error	Statement obtained without proper knowing and voluntary waiver	Waiver was knowing and voluntary; consultation adequate despite translation	No abuse; waiver and consultation adequate; admission proper
Whether conspiracy conviction violates double jeopardy	Evidence used for conspiracy same as for armed robberies; violates	Conspiracy elements separate from overt acts; evidence supports both	No double jeopardy violation; elements distinguished and sufficient evidence separated
Whether the aggregate twenty-four-year sentence is inappropriate	Sentence excessive given youth and juvenile history	Sentence warranted by nature and character; within statutory range	Sentence affirmed as not inappropriate under Appellate Rule 7(B)

Truax v. State, 856 N.E.2d 116 (Ind. Ct. App. 2006) (subject matter jurisdiction cannot be conferred by agreement)
Richardson v. State, 717 N.E.2d 32 (Ind. 1999) (actual elements test for same-offense double jeopardy)
Spivey v. State, 761 N.E.2d 831 (Ind. 2002) (actual evidence test elaborated; separation of conspiracy elements)
Guffey v. State, 717 N.E.2d 103 (Ind. 1999) (distinguishes proper vs. improper use of same evidentiary facts)
Colorado v. Spring, 479 U.S. 564 (U.S. 1987) (valid waiver does not require disclosure of all information)