Matthew P. Wilhoite v. State of Indiana
2014 Ind. App. LEXIS 173
| Ind. Ct. App. | 2014Background
- Wilhoite, Johnson, and Jones planned to rob Donald Willis in July 2011; Wilhoite aided the plan and prepared to aid in escape.
- The plan involved a drug deal with Willis, followed by robbery during the transaction.
- The armed robbery attempt failed; police apprehended Wilhoite and Johnson soon after.
- The State charged Wilhoite with Class B felony conspiracy; a jury found him guilty as charged.
- The court sentenced Wilhoite to fourteen years' imprisonment for conspiracy to commit armed robbery.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the charging information created a non-existent crime. | Wilhoite argues the offense named is nonexistent. | Wilhoite contends the label misstates the crime but elements were proper. | No fundamental error; notice was adequate despite mislabeling. |
| Whether failure to object to the charging label waives error. | State allows waiver for facially apparent defects. | Wilhoite did not object, waiving the issue. | Waiver applied; however merits reviewed for fundamental error. |
| Whether convicting a person of conspiracy to commit attempted robbery constitutes fundamental error. | State relied on conspiracy to commit armed robbery; attempted-conspiracy labeling problematic. | Conspiracy to commit a felony with an overt act can be charged; label irrelevant. | Not fundamental error; the evidence and instructions supported conspiracy to commit armed robbery. |
| Whether the record supports Wilhoite’s claim of denial of an impartial jury. | Record insufficient to prove racial composition of the jury. | Record incomplete; cannot review jury impartiality. | No reviewable error due to silent record; cannot infer fundamental error. |
Key Cases Cited
- Funk v. State, 714 N.E.2d 746 (Ind. Ct. App. 1999) (convictions for non-existent crimes reviewed for fundamental error)
- State v. Hancock, 530 N.E.2d 106 (Ind. Ct. App. 1988) (distinguishes sentencing prohibition under IC 35-41-5-3(a))
- Gilliland v. State, 979 N.E.2d 1049 (Ind. Ct. App. 2012) (information sufficiency and notice standards for charges)
- Dickenson v. State, 835 N.E.2d 542 (Ind. Ct. App. 2005) (requirements for fundamental-error review; notice and notice adequacy)
- Owens v. State, 929 N.E.2d 754 (Ind. 2010) (conspiracy vs. attempt pleading and elements; overt act distinction)
- Menifee v. State, 600 N.E.2d 967 (Ind. Ct. App. 1992) (record sufficiency for jury-impartiality claim; silent record limits review)