15 N.E.3d 670
Ind. Ct. App.2014Background
- Lee was convicted of attempted aggravated battery (Class B) after the court dismissed murder/conspiracy but kept the case open for lesser included offenses.
- Lee, Latoya Lee, and Billy Young were charged with murder and conspiracy; the trial occurred in Marion Superior Court before a bench trial.
- The court ultimately convicted all three of attempted aggravated battery; the actual shooter remained unidentified.
- On appeal, Lee’s panel affirmed the conviction; another panel later addressed Latoya’s conviction; a third panel addressed Young’s case.
- The Young panel held that attempted aggravated battery is not a lesser included offense to murder, prompting rehearing requests.
- Marquise Lee petitioned for rehearing seeking adherence to Young’s rationale; this panel rejected that approach and affirmed the prior decision.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Is Lee’s conviction preserved, and is there fundamental error? | Lee argues fundamental error under Young. | Lee failed to preserve the issue; no fundamental error. | No preservation; no fundamental error; conviction affirmed. |
Key Cases Cited
- Meriweather v. State, 659 N.E.2d 133 (Ind. Ct. App. 1995) (inherently includes lesser offenses in certain contexts)
- Ledesma v. State, 761 N.E.2d 896 (Ind. Ct. App. 2002) (attempted offenses and lesser included considerations)
- Wright v. State, 658 N.E.2d 563 (Ind. 1995) (standard for determining when lesser included offenses may be instructed)
- Ratcliffe v. State, 553 N.E.2d 1208 (Ind. 1990) (battery not inherently a lesser included offense of murder)
- Knapp v. State, 9 N.E.3d 1274 (Ind. 2014) (three-step framework for evaluating lesser included offenses)
- Miller v. State, 753 N.E.2d 1284 (Ind. 2001) (continuance and objection principles for amended charges)
- O’Grady v. State, 876 N.E.2d 763 (Ind. Ct. App. 2007) (information encompasses greater and lesser included offenses when appropriate)