Sterlen Shane Keller v. State of Indiana
987 N.E.2d 1099
| Ind. Ct. App. | 2013Background
- Keller was charged in Orange County with murder, auto theft, burglary, multiple theft counts, and failure to report a dead body after Collier’s death on Collier’s property.
- The State sought and received a five-count amendment adding burglary and nine theft counts shortly before trial; Keller objected but the court allowed it.
- A jury found Keller not guilty of murder but guilty of the remaining charges; sentencing followed with a total thirty-two-year term, partially executed.
- The appellate court later vacated certain counts under the single larceny rule and continuing-crime doctrine and remanded for re-sentencing.
- Keller challenged the amendment, speedy-trial rights, admissibility of police statements, jury instructions, sufficiency of evidence, and sentence, on appeal.
- The court ultimately affirmed some convictions, reversed others (vacating Counts 4, 7, 8, and 13), and remanded with a reduced total sentence of twenty-nine years.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Amendment to the charging information | Keller contends the amendment expanded charges late, prejudicing defense. | Keller argues waivers apply but asserts prejudice from late amendment. | Amendment of substance not abuse; continuance cured prejudice; no reversible error. |
| Speedy trial rights | Delay violated Barker factors and/or CR 4(B). | Delay was not prejudicial; he consented to continuances; no per se violation. | No constitutional speedy-trial violation; delay not excessive under totality of circumstances. |
| Admission of Keller’s statements to police | Statements obtained in violation of Miranda or after custodial interrogation should be excluded. | Statements were admissible; some were non-custodial and others properly Mirandized. | Court properly admitted the October 9, 2010 statement as non-custodial; October 11, 2010 statement Mirandized and admissible; no error. |
| Jury instructions and evidentiary triage | Conversion instruction and single larceny rule should have reduced counts; improper to deny. | No serious evidentiary dispute; proper to refuse conversion and apply single-larceny rule as warranted. | Refusal to give conversion and single larceny instruction affirmed; later held some theft counts barred by single larceny; remand to vacate counts. |
| Sufficiency of evidence and sentencing | There was sufficient evidence for auto theft, burglary, and several theft counts; etc. | Some counts lack sufficient evidence; errors in applying single larceny and continuing-crime doctrines. | Sufficient evidence supports auto theft, burglary, and several thefts; vacate Counts 4, 7, 8, 13; reduce sentence to twenty-nine years; remand for limited adjustments. |
Key Cases Cited
- Wilson v. State, 931 N.E.2d 914 (Ind. Ct. App. 2010) (amendments to charging information and when they constitute substantial amendments)
- Crane v. State, — (—) (not included in this record)
- Barker v. Wingo, 407 U.S. 514 (1972) (speedy-trial balancing factors)
- Cundiff v. State, 967 N.E.2d 1026 (Ind. 2012) (CR 4 and constitutional speedy-trial considerations)
- McCloud v. State, 959 N.E.2d 879 (Ind. Ct. App. 2011) (sixth-amendment speedy-trial framework)