State of Indiana v. Augustine Armando Gomez, Jr., 25S-CR-00014

Background

Gomez was arrested for domestic violence after his wife told police he had a gun and a felony conviction, and the State charged him with misdemeanor and level 5 felony unlawful carrying of a handgun. 1
Count II alleged Gomez carried a handgun after a prior federal or state offense punishable by more than one year; Count III alleged the same conduct with a prior Illinois felony conviction within fifteen years. 2
The probable cause affidavit identified Gomez's 2016 Illinois conviction for aggravated unlawful use of a weapon/vehicle, felony, by court and cause number. 3
The trial court dismissed Counts II and III as insufficiently pled and unconstitutional, reasoning the foreign conviction had to be substantially similar to an Indiana offense. 4
The Indiana Supreme Court held the charges were sufficiently certain and Count III was not unconstitutional because the trial court misapplied the reference statute. 5
The Court reversed the dismissal and remanded; a dissent would have affirmed dismissal of Count III. 6
The Court noted Hancock involved the older serious-violent-felon statute and a specific Indiana predicate offense reference, unlike Gomez's handgun charge. 7

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Were Counts II and III sufficiently certain? 8	State: charging information plus affidavit gave Gomez notice.	Gomez: counts lacked enough detail and specific predicate information.	Yes for both counts; notice was adequate. 9
Did Counts II and III state offenses? 10	State: alleged facts matched Indiana handgun statute.	Gomez: allegations did not constitute offenses.	Yes; allegations fit the statutory elements. 11
Does the reference statute require a substantially similar Indiana comparator for Count III? 12	State: Count III uses only a general felony reference, so no comparator is needed.	Gomez: out-of-state felony must be substantially similar to an Indiana felony.	No; the majority held subsection (b)(3) did not apply. 13
Was Count III unconstitutionally vague under Hancock? 14	State: Hancock is inapplicable and no constitutional ruling was needed.	Gomez: statute is vague if foreign felony must be compared to Indiana law.	No constitutional analysis required; Hancock not revisited. 15

Key Cases Cited

A.-H.Y. v. State, 975 N.E.2d 1273 (Ind. 2012) (abuse-of-discretion standard for dismissing a charging information 16)
State v. Davis, 898 N.E.2d 281 (Ind. 2008) (courts may dismiss charges to protect constitutional rights 17)
Horner v. Curry, 125 N.E.3d 584 (Ind. 2019) (constitutional questions are reviewed de novo 18)
Girl Scouts of S. Ill. v. Vincennes Ind. Girls, Inc., 988 N.E.2d 250 (Ind. 2013) (courts avoid constitutional issues if a case can be resolved otherwise 19)
State v. Katz, 179 N.E.3d 431 (Ind. 2022) (charging information must give notice of the offense 20)
State v. Laker, 939 N.E.2d 1111 (Ind. Ct. App. 2010) (probable cause affidavit may be read with the charging information 21)
Lampitok v. State, 817 N.E.2d 630 (Ind. Ct. App. 2004) (information must enable accused, court, and jury to determine the charged crime 22)
Hernandez v. State, 220 N.E.3d 68 (Ind. Ct. App. 2023) (facially deficient allegations fail to align with statutory elements 23)
State v. Hancock, 65 N.E.3d 585 (Ind. 2016) (older serious-violent-felon case requiring comparison of specific predicate offenses 24)
State v. Dickens, 261 N.E.3d 778 (Ind. Ct. App. 2025) (test for whether an information states an offense 25)
State v. Rodgers, 93 N.E. 223 (Ind. 1910) (every element necessary to constitute an offense must be directly and positively charged 26)
State v. Johnson, 270 N.E.3d 489 (Ind. Ct. App. 2025) (notice can be adequate when the Indiana comparator is reasonably inferable 27)
State v. Neukam, 189 N.E.3d 152 (Ind. 2022) (statutory text controls and courts should not rewrite enacted language 28)
Fix v. State, 186 N.E.3d 1134 (Ind. 2022) (rule of lenity favors the narrower construction when ambiguity persists 29)