Jeffrey A. Rader v. State of Indiana (mem. dec.)
79A05-1608-CR-1877
| Ind. Ct. App. | Mar 21, 2017Background
- On Nov. 18, 2015 police responded to La Quinta Inn after a report of persons with warrants and an odor of marijuana from room 307; five people were present, including Rader asleep on the bed.
- During an arrest for an outstanding warrant, police found 13.84 grams of cocaine hidden in Rader’s underwear, $836 cash on the bed, and a cell phone belonging to Rader.
- The cell phone contained photos of Rader with large amounts of cash and an image of cash with a bag of what appeared to be cocaine, plus numerous incoming/outgoing texts seeking or referring to cocaine.
- The State charged Rader with Level 4 felony possession of cocaine (Count I), Level 2 felony dealing in cocaine (Count II), Class A misdemeanor possession of a synthetic drug (Count III), and alleged habitual-offender status.
- A jury convicted Rader of Counts I and II and acquitted him on Count III; the trial court found him a habitual offender; sentencing statements (oral and written) conflicted as to aggregate term and components.
- The Court of Appeals affirmed the dealing conviction, reversed the possession conviction on double-jeopardy grounds (vacated possession), and remanded for clarification/correction of sentencing (noting additional sentencing errors).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sufficiency of evidence for Level 2 dealing (intent to deliver) | State: quantity (13.84g), cash, phone photos, and drug-sale texts support intent to deliver | Rader: cocaine was for personal use; evidence insufficient to prove intent to deliver | Affirmed: cumulative circumstantial evidence permitted a reasonable inference of intent to deliver |
| Sentencing discrepancies between oral and written orders | State: remand needed; trial court should resolve its intent | Rader: remand to impose the oral sentence | Remanded: court could not discern intent; instructed to enter a new sentencing statement clarifying intent |
| Treatment of habitual-offender enhancement | State treated habitual-offender as separate consecutive sentence | Rader: (argued sentencing errors) | Reversed treatment: habitual-offender is an enhancement, not a separate consecutive sentence; trial court must attach enhancement to highest sentence |
| Double jeopardy from convicting/sentencing both dealing and possession based on same cocaine | State proceeded on both counts | Rader: conviction and sentence on both violate double jeopardy | Reversed possession conviction and vacated that sentence (possession is lesser-included offense of dealing when same evidence supports both) |
Key Cases Cited
- Atteberry v. State, 911 N.E.2d 601 (Ind. Ct. App. 2009) (standard for sufficiency review)
- Baumgartner v. State, 891 N.E.2d 1131 (Ind. Ct. App. 2008) (sufficiency and inferences)
- Drane v. State, 867 N.E.2d 144 (Ind. 2007) (evidentiary sufficiency standard)
- Love v. State, 741 N.E.2d 789 (Ind. Ct. App. 2001) (intent inferred from circumstances)
- McGuire v. State, 613 N.E.2d 861 (Ind. Ct. App. 1993) (mental state proved by inference)
- Walker v. State, 932 N.E.2d 733 (Ind. Ct. App. 2010) (examining oral and written sentencing statements together)
- Dowell v. State, 873 N.E.2d 59 (Ind. 2007) (compare oral and written sentencing statements)
- McElroy v. State, 865 N.E.2d 584 (Ind. 2007) (remand or credit statement options when sentences conflict)
- Whitham v. State, 49 N.E.3d 162 (Ind. Ct. App. 2015) (double jeopardy may be raised sua sponte)
- Harrison v. State, 901 N.E.2d 635 (Ind. Ct. App. 2009) (possession as lesser-included offense of dealing)
- Mason v. State, 532 N.E.2d 1169 (Ind. 1989) (double jeopardy bars separate conviction/sentencing on lesser when greater is based on same conduct)