Schaaf v. State
2016 Ind. App. LEXIS 157
| Ind. Ct. App. | 2016Background
- In April–May 2014, two controlled buys occurred involving Joshua Schaaf, Randall Conliff, and a confidential informant; small amounts of heroin were exchanged for $50 in each transaction.
- First transaction: informant entered Schaaf’s pickup, paid Conliff $50 for 0.10 g of heroin; Schaaf drove Conliff to the location and permitted the informant into his truck.
- Second transaction: informant was turned away at Conliff’s house and instead bought 0.08 g of heroin for $50 from Schaaf at a location within 1,000 feet of public parks.
- Schaaf was charged and convicted of dealing a narcotic drug: Count I (Class B felony) for the first transaction and Count II (enhanced to Class A felony) for the second transaction; jury convicted on both counts.
- Trial court found three aggravators (criminal history, presence of a 17–18-year-old during second transaction, prior probation failure), imposed 15 years on Count I and 40 years on Count II, to run concurrently (total 40 years).
- On appeal the court affirmed both convictions but found the aggregate sentence inappropriate and remanded for concurrent advisory sentences totaling 30 years (10 years on Count I; 30 years on Count II).
Issues
| Issue | Schaaf's Argument | State's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sufficiency of evidence as to Count I (accomplice liability) | Schaaf was only a bystander and didn’t deliver drugs | Schaaf aided Conliff by arranging meeting, driving to site, allowing informant into truck | Conviction affirmed — accomplice liability satisfied by presence, companionship, failure to oppose, conduct before/during crime |
| Proximity enhancement on Count II (knowledge element) | Enhancement invalid because State didn’t prove Schaaf knew he was within 1,000 ft of a park; asks to reexamine Walker | Enhancement is a strict-liability element under Walker; knowledge not required | Conviction and enhancement affirmed under Walker; Walker controls because statute amended after offense date |
| Appropriateness of 40-year aggregate sentence under App. R. 7(B) | 40 years is inappropriate given small amounts, controlled buys, limited role | Trial court’s sentence within statutory range and supported by significant criminal history and aggravators | Sentence revised: remand for concurrent advisory sentences (10 years Count I; 30 years Count II), total 30 years |
| Whether appellate court may overrule Walker | N/A (Schaaf urged reexamination) | Appellate panel bound by Indiana Supreme Court precedent | Court declines to overrule Walker; bound by Supreme Court decisions |
Key Cases Cited
- Specht v. State, 838 N.E.2d 1081 (Ind. Ct. App. 2005) (statute provides accomplice liability basis — aider is as guilty as principal)
- Wieland v. State, 736 N.E.2d 1198 (Ind. 2000) (factors for accomplice liability: presence, companionship, failure to oppose, conduct before/during/after)
- Walker v. State, 668 N.E.2d 243 (Ind. 1996) (presence in a protected zone for drug enhancement is a strict-liability element)
- Whatley v. State, 928 N.E.2d 202 (Ind. 2010) (discussing Walker’s holding on zone strict liability)
- Wilson v. State, 39 N.E.3d 705 (Ind. Ct. App. 2015) (standard for reviewing sufficiency of evidence)
- Cardwell v. State, 895 N.E.2d 1219 (Ind. 2008) (App. R. 7(B) focuses on nature of offense and character of offender when assessing sentence appropriateness)
- Norris v. State, 27 N.E.3d 333 (Ind. Ct. App. 2015) (example of sentence reduction under 7(B) for monitored controlled buy to confidential informant)
- Anglemyer v. State, 868 N.E.2d 482 (Ind. 2007) (deference owed to trial court in sentencing review)