950 N.E.2d 365
Ind. Ct. App.2011Background
- Carlton Wright appealed his robbery (Class A felony) and criminal confinement (Class D felony) convictions and his aggregate 50-year sentence.
- Santiago, an English-language-limited victim, rode with Wright and Ball, then was robbed and shot by Ball; Wright assisted and aided Ball at various points.
- A van pursuit followed, Wright and Ball fled; Wright remained with Ball after the shooting and was later captured.
- Ball fired the shot; Wright helped remove Santiago from the van and drove away, contributing to the robbery.
- The jury convicted Wright of robbery and resisting law enforcement, and criminal confinement as a Class D felony; Wright was sentenced to 50 years total; Wright appealed.
- The court affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded to vacate the criminal confinement conviction.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether there is sufficient evidence to convict Wright of robbery | Wright argues insufficiency as an accomplice | Wright asserts lack of independent proof beyond robbery | Sufficient evidence as accomplice |
| Whether robbery and criminal confinement violate double jeopardy | State shows separate elements/evidence | Convictions overlap with confinement | Criminal confinement conviction vacated |
| Whether the sentence is appropriate in light of the offense and offender | Maximum sentence warranted by harm and history | Sentence excessive given role as accomplice | Sentence not inappropriate; remand to vacate confinement conviction |
Key Cases Cited
- Garland v. State, 788 N.E.2d 425 (Ind.2003) (factors for accomplice liability; presence, companionship, opposition, conduct)
- Wieland v. State, 736 N.E.2d 1198 (Ind.2000) (sufficiency for accomplice robbery)
- Drane v. State, 867 N.E.2d 144 (Ind.2007) (standard for sufficiency review; weigh not reweigh evidence)
- Spivey v. State, 761 N.E.2d 831 (Ind.2002) (actual evidence test for double jeopardy)
- Richardson v. State, 717 N.E.2d 32 (Ind.1999) (same offense test under Indiana Constitution)
- Vanzandt v. State, 731 N.E.2d 450 (Ind.Ct.App.2000) (double jeopardy where evidence inseparable between offenses)
- Polk v. State, 783 N.E.2d 1253 (Ind.Ct.App.2003) (robbery and confinement may violate double jeopardy)