White v. State
944 N.E.2d 532
Ind. Ct. App.2011Background
- White was convicted of theft and receiving stolen property for stealing a cash register and cash from a Golden Corral with his accomplice Hills.
- The cash register contained $968; Hills and White allegedly divided the proceeds after the theft.
- White was later found guilty of theft and receiving stolen property; he also was found to be a habitual offender.
- The trial court sentenced White to three years for theft and three years for receiving stolen property, enhanced by four and a half years for habitual offender status (to be served concurrently).
- On appeal, the court vacated the receiving stolen property conviction and the habitual offender finding and remanded for resentencing on the remaining theft conviction.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Double jeopardy violation | State: theft and receiving stolen property are separate offenses; valid conviction. | White: dual convictions for theft and receiving stolen property impermissibly duplicate the same conduct. | The convictions violate double jeopardy; vacate receiving stolen property conviction and sentence. |
| Sufficiency of the theft evidence | State: White aided Hills and knowingly participated in theft of the cash register. | White: insufficient evidence to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that he committed theft as an accomplice. | Evidence was sufficient to support theft conviction. |
| Sufficiency of habitual offender finding | State: White had two prior unrelated felonies; supports habitual offender finding. | White: prior alleged felonies occurred when he was 15; no evidence showing adult conviction; insufficient. | Habitual offender finding vacated due to insufficient evidence. |
| Sentence appropriateness after vacatur | State: imposition of habitual offender enhancement justified. | White: three-year theft sentence inappropriate given offenses and character. | Sentence affirmed to the extent of the theft conviction; vacate other counts and enhancements; remand with instructions. |
Key Cases Cited
- Richardson v. State, 717 N.E.2d 32 (Ind.1999) (test for same-offense double jeopardy uses elements/evidence)
- Porter v. State, 743 N.E.2d 1260 (Ind.Ct.App.2001) (accomplice liability for all acts of co-perpetrator)
- Boggs v. State, 928 N.E.2d 855 (Ind.Ct.App.2010) (sufficiency of habitual offender evidence standards)
- Stewart v. State, 866 N.E.2d 858 (Ind.Ct.App.2007) (Rule 7(B) sentencing review deference to trial court)
- Childress v. State, 848 N.E.2d 1073 (Ind.Ct.App.2006) (appropriateness of sentence factors)
- Clark v. State, 728 N.E.2d 880 (Ind.Ct.App.2000) (insufficient evidence standard for appellate review)