Tracy D. Guffey v. State of Indiana
42 N.E.3d 152
| Ind. Ct. App. | 2015Background
- Guffey, an inmate, directed a plan through his girlfriend Mize for her to have sex with her son C.M. including providing vodka and guidance.
- Fayette County Sheriff’s officers recorded Guffey’s jail calls; 16 calls were at issue, 15 pre-dating October 4, 2012.
- State introduced 16 recordings; Guffey objected to 15 of them as 404(b) and prejudicial.
- Trial court admitted the 15 recordings to show plan/preparation for conspiracy to commit child molesting; one call on Oct 4 was also admitted.
- Trial court merged certain counts post-conviction; a separate habitual-offender sentence was imposed, leading to irregular sentencing that later required remand.
- Court ultimately affirmed some convictions, remanded to vacate Counts II and IV and to correct habitual-offender sentencing, and vacate Counts III and V due to double jeopardy; Count I conspiracy to commit child molesting remained.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether admission of jail-recorded conversations was an abuse of discretion | Guffey argues 404(b) prejudice and lack of proper relevance. | State contends recordings show plan/preparation for conspiracy; relevance under 404(b) and admissible. | No abuse; recordings admissible for plan/preparation with proper balancing. |
| Whether convictions violated Indiana double jeopardy | Guffey contends separate judgments/sentences violate actual-evidence test. | State concedes some counts violate double jeopardy and should be vacated. | Counts III and V vacated; remand to adjust sentencing; habitual-offender sentence properly treated as enhancement on Count I. |
| Whether the evidence sufficed to support the conspiracy conviction | Guffey asserts insufficient evidence of an agreement and overt act. | State contends testimony and acts (vodka purchase) establish agreement and overt act. | Sufficient evidence supported Count I; court preserved judgment on Count I and affirmed, with remands for related counts. |
Key Cases Cited
- Gregory v. State, 885 N.E.2d 697 (Ind. Ct. App. 2008) (merger timing affects double jeopardy relief; remand to vacate prior judgments)
- Green v. State, 856 N.E.2d 703 (Ind. 2006) (merger outcomes and double jeopardy considerations in multi-count cases)
- Hendrix v. State, 759 N.E.2d 1045 (Ind. 2001) (habitual-offender findings and sentencing interplay with counts)
- Piercefield v. State, 877 N.E.2d 1213 (Ind. Ct. App. 2007) (grooming evidence admissibility under Rule 404(b))
- Drane v. State, 867 N.E.2d 144 (Ind. 2007) (standard for sufficiency review in appellate courts)