Jones v. State
2010 Ind. App. LEXIS 2487
| Ind. Ct. App. | 2010Background
- Jones was convicted at trial of Class D felony resisting law enforcement and Class A misdemeanor criminal recklessness following a vehicle incident with police in Hendricks County on Oct. 22, 2009.
- Approximately twenty-five officers converged on Jones' vehicle after a confidential informant exited; Jones accelerated in reverse and struck a marked police vehicle.
- Jones faced multiple charges including dealing in cocaine, possession of cocaine, possession of marijuana, and conspiracy, but trial proceeded on resisting law enforcement and criminal recklessness after others were dismissed in exchange for his testimony.
- The jury found Jones guilty of resisting law enforcement and reckless conduct; he was sentenced to three years and ordered to pay various fees totaling over $6,000.
- The court, on appeal, challenges sufficiency of evidence, potential double jeopardy, and the propriety of several fee awards, with remand requested for indigency determinations.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Was the evidence sufficient to convict Jones of resisting law enforcement? | Jones argues the charging information named the wrong officer, creating a fatal variance. | Jones contends the officer naming error prejudiced defense and undermines proof of fleeing a named officer. | Sufficient evidence supports resisting law enforcement; officer identity variance was surplusage and not fatal. |
| Does Jones' conviction for resisting law enforcement and reckless endangerment violate double jeopardy? | Prosecution relied on the same vehicle-based conduct to enhance both offenses. | The enhancements for using a vehicle to commit distinct offenses could be punished separately. | Yes, double jeopardy applies; remand to reduce reckless to a Class B misdemeanor and resentence. |
| Were the jury, pauper counsel, and docket fees properly imposed? | Fees should be upheld as within statutory authority. | Indigency hearings were not conducted, and some fees exceed statutory limits or statutory requirements. | Remand for indigency determinations; reduce jury fee to $2.00; void pauper counsel and docket fees absent proper statutory authorization. |
Key Cases Cited
- Parahams v. State, 908 N.E.2d 689 (Ind.Ct.App.2009) (single resisting charge; officer identity not fatal where defense not hindered)
- Bonner v. State, 789 N.E.2d 491 (Ind.Ct.App.2003) (information must be plain and specific; surplusage allowed when not crucial)
- Mitchem v. State, 685 N.E.2d 671 (Ind.1997) (factors for sufficiency and double jeopardy considerations)
- Porter v. State, 935 N.E.2d 1228 (Ind.Ct.App.2010) (double jeopardy principles for enhanced offenses)
- Richardson v. State, 717 N.E.2d 32 (Ind.1999) (double jeopardy analysis guidance)
- Whaley v. State, 843 N.E.2d 1 (Ind.Ct.App.2006) (officer identification in charges; essential in multi-offense scenarios)
- O'Connor v. State, 590 N.E.2d 145 (Ind.Ct.App.1992) (vacating conviction where misnamed officer involved)
- Banks v. State, 847 N.E.2d 1050 (Ind.Ct.App.2006) (indigency prerequisites for costs; improper fee assessment without hearing)
- Lamonte v. State, 839 N.E.2d 172 (Ind.Ct.App.2005) (fees imposed without indigency finding improper)
- Jester v. State, 746 N.E.2d 437 (Ind.Ct.App.2001) (trial court's discretion on costs; abuse if statutory limits exceeded)
- Mathis v. State, 776 N.E.2d 1283 (Ind.Ct.App.2002) (costs assessment limits; indigency considerations)
- Like v. State, 760 N.E.2d 1188 (Ind.Ct.App.2002) (indigent status does not shield from all costs)