Kevin D. Hamilton v. State of Indiana (mem. dec.)
02A03-1704-CR-932
| Ind. Ct. App. | Dec 29, 2017Background
- On August 14, 2016, Kevin D. Hamilton and an accomplice (Devyn Yancey) executed a planned robbery of Brian Quintana during a marijuana transaction; Hamilton brought a .9 mm handgun.
- During the robbery Hamilton fired through the rear windshield, striking Quintana; Quintana later died.
- Hamilton was charged with murder (Count I), felony murder (Count II), robbery as a Level 2 felony (Count III—alleging serious bodily injury), and an enhancement for use of a firearm causing death or serious bodily injury (Count IV).
- A jury convicted Hamilton on all counts; the trial court merged felony murder into murder, reduced the robbery conviction to Level 3 (robbery while armed), and entered a separate firearm enhancement; total sentence 74 years, consecutive.
- On appeal Hamilton challenged (1) the merger of felony murder into murder, (2) double jeopardy as to murder and the robbery conviction (and whether reducing robbery to Level 3 cured any double jeopardy), and (3) whether the jury should have been bifurcated for the firearm enhancement.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (State) | Defendant's Argument (Hamilton) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether trial court erred by merging felony murder into murder | Merger is proper; judgment entered only on murder, not on felony murder | Merger was insufficient — verdict should have been vacated to cure double jeopardy | Court: No error; merger (no separate judgment/sentence on felony murder) avoids double jeopardy |
| Whether sentencing on Level 3 robbery (reduced from Level 2) cured double jeopardy with murder | Reducing to Level 3 based on being armed (not on serious bodily injury) removes overlap with murder | Element of bodily injury (and serious bodily injury) necessarily duplicative of murder; Level 3 still overlaps because injury used to prove murder | Court: No double jeopardy; evidence supported conviction as robbery while armed (Level 3), not premised on the injury element used for murder |
| Whether allowing enhancement evidence during the main trial (without reconvening jury) violated statutory procedure | Enhancement was properly alleged on separate page; evidence of firearm was necessary to prove murder and defense, so no prejudicial need to bifurcate | Statute requires jury to reconvene for enhancement; failure to hold separate enhancement hearing precludes enhancement | Court: No reversible error; reconvening unnecessary here because evidence of firearm was central to both guilt and defense and enhancement allegation was properly filed |
Key Cases Cited
- Laux v. State, 821 N.E.2d 816 (Ind. 2005) (double jeopardy merger principles and remedy discussion)
- Green v. State, 856 N.E.2d 703 (Ind. 2006) (merger vs. vacatur of jury verdicts; entry of judgment only on merged count addressed)
- Wilson v. State, 39 N.E.3d 705 (Ind. Ct. App. 2015) (merger of felony murder into murder where no separate judgment/sentence avoided double jeopardy)
- Richardson v. State, 717 N.E.2d 32 (Ind. 1999) (tests for same offense under Indiana Double Jeopardy Clause)
- Lee v. State, 892 N.E.2d 1231 (Ind. 2008) (actual-evidence test; identify essential elements and evaluate evidence from jury’s perspective)
- Spivey v. State, 761 N.E.2d 831 (Ind. 2002) (guidance on determining facts used by fact-finder including charging information, instructions, and counsel arguments)
- Dilts v. State, 49 N.E.3d 617 (Ind. Ct. App. 2015) (actual evidence test explained: reasonable possibility that same evidentiary facts were used for multiple offenses)
- Sunday v. State, 720 N.E.2d 716 (Ind. 1999) (statutory requirements for firearm enhancement; failure to allege enhancement procedurally precluded enhancement)
- Johnson v. State, 544 N.E.2d 164 (Ind. Ct. App. 1989) (recognition of prejudice concerns that can require bifurcated enhancement proceedings)