Harry Spicer v. State of Indiana (mem. dec.)
15A01-1512-CR-2205
| Ind. Ct. App. | Jan 30, 2017Background
- In Feb 2014 Harry Spicer and co-defendant Lisa Ellis obtained four 96-count boxes of pseudoephedrine and delivered them to Vernis Newton in Ohio for methamphetamine manufacture; one box yields ~2 grams of methamphetamine.
- Spicer, who was prohibited from purchasing pseudoephedrine due to a prior methamphetamine conviction and was on probation for that offense, had another person buy three boxes for him; Ellis obtained the remaining box.
- Text messages and trial testimony showed Ellis told Newton Spicer wanted Newton to "do the same for him as [he does] Sammy," Newton agreed, and Spicer and Ellis planned to return for the methamphetamine after manufacturing.
- Newton was arrested before all methamphetamine was collected; Ellis cooperated with police and testified against Spicer at trial. Twenty-five co‑defendants pleaded guilty; Spicer went to trial.
- A jury convicted Spicer of Class A felony conspiracy to commit dealing in methamphetamine (3+ grams). The trial court imposed a 40‑year sentence, consecutive to a revoked probation term, citing his criminal history and commission of the offense while on probation.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sufficiency of evidence to convict of Class A conspiracy to deal (manufacturing) | State: circumstantial evidence (texts, testimony, delivery of pseudoephedrine, Newton's lab) supports inference of agreement and intent to manufacture >3g | Spicer: lacked specific evidence he knew/processes of manufacture or intended manufacturing; mere supply of pills insufficient | Affirmed. Evidence (texts, acts, delivery, role in supply chain) sufficient to infer agreement and intent; conviction stands |
| Appropriateness of 40‑year sentence under Ind. App. R. 7(B) | State: sentence within 20–50 year range; aggravators (prior meth conviction, committed while on probation) justify 40 years | Spicer: role was minor; health issues; disparity with co‑defendants (shorter pleas) makes sentence inappropriate | Affirmed. Court finds sentence not inappropriate given nature of offense, prior record, and commission while on probation |
Key Cases Cited
- Bowman v. State, 51 N.E.3d 1174 (cites standard of deference on sufficiency review)
- Drane v. State, 867 N.E.2d 144 (framework for sufficiency review; consider probative evidence and reasonable inferences)
- Bailey v. State, 979 N.E.2d 133 (conviction may be sustained on uncorroborated testimony of a single witness)
- Erkins v. State, 13 N.E.3d 400 (agreement and intent may be inferred from circumstantial evidence and overt acts)
- Childress v. State, 848 N.E.2d 1073 (Appellate Rule 7(B) burden and advisory sentence guidance)
- Cardwell v. State, 895 N.E.2d 1219 (purpose and limits of Rule 7(B) review)
- Conley v. State, 972 N.E.2d 864 (Rule 7(B) evaluates whether imposed sentence is inappropriate, not whether a different sentence is preferable)
- Norris v. State, 27 N.E.3d 333 (example of Rule 7(B) reduction where offense involved a small amount and was relatively minor)
- Guzman v. State, 985 N.E.2d 1125 (focus on nature/extent of offense and what it reveals about offender's character in Rule 7(B) analysis)