Tyrone Winkleman v. State of Indiana
22 N.E.3d 844
| Ind. Ct. App. | 2014Background
- Victim James Armagost, a 68-year-old truck driver, was assaulted, threatened with a knife, robbed of cash, cards, keys (including medication), and driven around by Tyrone Winkleman before escaping and reporting the crime.
- Police found Winkleman in the adjacent motel room with the victim’s cards, keys, a knife, a large amount of ATM cash, and a woman; Winkleman admitted hitting the victim.
- Winkleman was charged with robbery causing serious bodily injury (Class A), kidnapping (Class A), criminal confinement (Class B), and carjacking (Class B); the State also alleged habitual-offender status.
- A jury convicted Winkleman on the counts tried; he pled guilty to the habitual-offender allegation during trial; the court entered convictions on Counts I–III and sentenced him to concurrent terms totaling 76 years (including a 30-year habitual enhancement).
- On appeal Winkleman challenged: (1) a jury instruction on kidnapping that omitted the force/threat element; (2) the trial court’s failure to advise him of Boykin rights before his habitual-offender plea; and (3) the identification of four aggravators at sentencing.
Issues
| Issue | Winkleman’s Argument | State’s Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Jury instruction omitted force/threat element for kidnapping | Instruction No. 4 omitted the required element (force or threat of force), so jury was not instructed on all elements | Error is harmless; the omitted element was established by the record and Instruction No. 3 correctly quoted the charging information | No fundamental error; omission was not central and force/threat was clearly supported by evidence and other instructions |
| Boykin advisement before habitual-offender plea | Plea to habitual-offender allegation was entered without Boykin advisement, so plea should be vacated | Defendant declined a formal advisement; Boykin does not require formal on-record advisement if defendant knew he was waiving rights, and rights were effectively on display during trial | No relief; record shows Winkleman understood rights and waived advisement, so plea stands |
| Sentencing — use of four aggravators (veteran status, withholding medication/keychain, multiple counts, paying for prostitute) | Several aggravators were unsupported or improper and thus sentence was an abuse of discretion | Most challenged aggravators were either not relied on, supported by record, or cumulative with other valid aggravators; sentence within statutory range and court stated other aggravators would alone justify sentence | No abuse of discretion; even without challenged aggravators court would have imposed same sentence, so affirmed |
Key Cases Cited
- Washington v. State, 997 N.E.2d 342 (Ind. 2013) (standard of review for jury instructions)
- Brooks v. State, 895 N.E.2d 130 (Ind. Ct. App. 2008) (instruction error requires abuse of discretion and misleading jury as whole)
- Ryan v. State, 9 N.E.3d 663 (Ind. 2014) (narrow standard for fundamental error)
- Hall v. State, 937 N.E.2d 911 (Ind. Ct. App. 2010) (omitted mens rea not fundamental when not central issue)
- Sanders v. State, 764 N.E.2d 705 (Ind. Ct. App. 2002) (omitted intent element can be harmless if record clearly shows element)
- In re Winship, 397 U.S. 358 (U.S. 1970) (defendant entitled to jury find every element beyond reasonable doubt)
- Dewitt v. State, 755 N.E.2d 167 (Ind. 2001) (Boykin requires vacatur only if defendant did not know he was waiving rights)
- Hopkins v. State, 889 N.E.2d 314 (Ind. 2008) (Boykin issues in context of habitual-offender proceedings discussed)
- Anglemyer v. State, 868 N.E.2d 482 (Ind. 2007) (sentencing standard and grounds for abuse of discretion)
- McDonald v. State, 868 N.E.2d 1111 (Ind. 2007) (multiple crimes can be valid aggravator and harmlessness where other aggravators suffice)