Randy Lee Higgins v. State of Indiana (mem. dec.)
79A02-1706-CR-1299
| Ind. Ct. App. | Jan 8, 2018Background
- Randy Lee Higgins lived with the victim's family and was a caregiver to M.H., a thirteen-year-old; Mother found edited videos of M.H. on Higgins’s Google account and iPhone in March 2016.
- Police executed a search warrant and seized Higgins’s phone, a key-fob camera, a wireless camera, Velcro pads, drug paraphernalia, and a metal canister containing methamphetamine and MDA.
- Forensic review found multiple edited videos of M.H. showing her unclothed and Google search history (Jan–Mar 2016) with queries about hidden cameras and nude/teen content contemporaneous with the videos.
- Higgins denied knowledge of the videos, claimed others framed him, and was arrested; charged with multiple felonies and misdemeanors including possession of child pornography and methamphetamine.
- Higgins initially had private counsel, later obtained appointed counsel; on the morning of trial he sought a continuance to retain private counsel which the court denied; jury convicted him on possession counts and methamphetamine possession; aggregate sentence ordered was seven years (five executed, two suspended).
- Trial court ordered the remaining cash bond balance paid to the public defender’s office to defray defense costs; record lacked explicit testimony of the actual defense cost.
Issues
| Issue | State's Argument | Higgins's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether denial of a continuance to retain private counsel on trial day was an abuse of discretion | Continuance was untimely; case pending >1 year; prior opportunity to secure counsel; appointed counsel was prepared | Higgins claimed new financial ability to hire counsel and alleged appointed counsel ineffective | Denial affirmed: last-minute continuances to hire counsel are disfavored and court acted within discretion (no abuse) |
| Whether admission of Google search history (State’s Ex. 63BR) was improper under Evidence Rule 403 | Search history was probative of intent/motive/plan and contemporaneous with the videos | Evidence was minimally relevant and highly prejudicial | Admission affirmed: probative value substantial and not substantially outweighed by unfair prejudice |
| Whether the aggregate seven-year sentence is inappropriate under App. R. 7(B) | Sentence within statutory ranges and supported by nature of offense (victim in his care) and defendant’s criminal history | Sentence excessive; claimed court imposed maximum | Sentence affirmed: court gave reasons; not an inappropriate outlier given culpability and character |
| Whether ordering cash bond balance paid to public defender without evidence of defense costs was erroneous | Court properly ordered bond balance to defray costs; amount was not more than likely actual cost | No evidence presented as to actual cost; argues court erred | Affirmed: remand unnecessary because amount ordered was clearly within likely cost of services; better practice would be evidence but not required here |
Key Cases Cited
- Lewis v. State, 730 N.E.2d 686 (Ind. 2000) (right to counsel of choice must be exercised at appropriate stage)
- Snow v. State, 77 N.E.3d 173 (Ind. 2017) (trial courts have wide discretion on relevance and unfair prejudice rulings)
- Anglemyer v. State, 868 N.E.2d 482 (Ind. 2007) (standards for appellate review of sentencing)
- Bethea v. State, 983 N.E.2d 1134 (Ind. 2013) (factors for appellate appropriateness review of sentences)