Kenyatta Robinson v. State of Indiana (mem. dec.)
46A04-1511-CR-2040
| Ind. Ct. App. | Jan 17, 2017Background
- In June–July 2014 LaPorte County conducted three controlled buys using confidential informants who called Robinson to order cocaine; Robinson directed meeting locations and often sent others to deliver drugs.
- Controlled buys: June 27 (Hanna called, Dorothy Dunham delivered cocaine), July 15 (Arnett called, Sable Connor delivered), July 16 (Hanna called, Bernard Williams sold; Marcus Koehn and Williams picked up later).
- Multiple witnesses (confidential informants, Dunham, Connor, Koehn) testified Robinson arranged the transactions and received money/drugs after deliveries.
- Jury convicted Robinson of three counts of aiding/inducing/causing dealing in cocaine (one Class B, two Level 4) and found him to be an habitual offender.
- Trial court imposed concurrent eight-year terms on the Level 4 counts, a consecutive 16-year term on the Class B count, and a 12-year habitual-offender enhancement, for an aggregate executed sentence of 36 years.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (State) | Defendant's Argument (Robinson) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sufficiency of the evidence to sustain convictions for aiding/inducing/causing dealing in cocaine | Evidence (informant calls, direction of meeting locations, testimony that Robinson sent runners and received money/drugs) supports each element beyond a reasonable doubt | Witnesses were unreliable addicts and cooperators; controlled buys were inadequate (alleged insufficient searches of informants/vehicles) | Affirmed: evidence sufficient; credibility and weight are for jury; searches and controlled-buy procedures were adequate |
| Appropriateness of 36-year executed sentence under Ind. Appellate Rule 7(B) | Sentence is within statutory bounds and supported by offense and defendant’s record | Sentence is inappropriate given offense and character (argued mitigation; also challenges to trial court’s findings) | Affirmed: sentence not inappropriate given offense severity, extensive criminal history, probation violation, and attempt to tamper with witness |
Key Cases Cited
- Willis v. State, 27 N.E.3d 1065 (Ind. 2015) (do not reweigh evidence or judge witness credibility on sufficiency review)
- Walker v. State, 998 N.E.2d 724 (Ind. 2013) (standard for substantial evidence supporting each element)
- Vaughn v. State, 13 N.E.3d 873 (Ind. Ct. App. 2014) (describing controlled-buy procedures; pat-down searches suffice)
- Ross v. State, 908 N.E.2d 626 (Ind. Ct. App. 2009) (controlled-buy framework)
- Huber v. State, 805 N.E.2d 887 (Ind. Ct. App. 2004) (denial of directed verdict reviewed under sufficiency standard)
- Edwards v. State, 862 N.E.2d 1254 (Ind. Ct. App. 2007) (same standard for reviewing directed-verdict denials)
- Childress v. State, 848 N.E.2d 1073 (Ind. 2006) (burden on appellant to show sentence inappropriate)
- Cardwell v. State, 895 N.E.2d 1219 (Ind. 2008) (factors for Rule 7(B) review and role of appellate review)
- Jones v. State, 885 N.E.2d 1286 (Ind. 2008) (probation-revocation terms not subject to Rule 7(B))
- Page v. State, 706 N.E.2d 230 (Ind. Ct. App. 1990) (failure to present cogent appellate argument may waive issues)