Dwayne A. Springfield, Appellant-Defendant, v. State of Indiana, Appellee-Plaintiff.
Court of Appeals Case No. 18A-CR-1317
Court of Appeals of Indiana
December 28, 2018
Riley, Judge.
Appeal from the Marion Superior Court; The Honorable Alicia Gooden, Judge; The Honorable Richard Hagenmaier, Commissioner; Trial Court Cause No. 49G21-1612-F2-47464
ATTORNEY FOR APPELLANT
Valerie K. Boots
Indianapolis, Indiana
ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE
Curtis T. Hill, Jr.
Attorney General of Indiana
Henry A. Flores, Jr.
Deputy Attorney
Indianapolis, Indiana
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
[1] Appellant-Defendant, Dwayne Springfield (Springfield), appeals his conviction for one Count of possession of cocaine and a firearm, a Level 4 felony; one Count of possession of a narcotic drug and a firearm, a Level 5 felony, one Count of unlawful possession of a firearm by a serious violent felon (SVF), a Level 4 felony; one Count of battery resulting in bodily injury to an officer; a Level 5 felony; one Count of resisting law enforcement, a Class A misdemeanor; one Count of possession of marijuana, a Class B misdemeanor.
[2] We affirm in part, reverse in part, and remand with instructions.
ISSUE
[3] Springfield presents a single issue on appeal, which we restate as follows: Whether his conviction for Level 4 felony possession of cocaine and a firearm, Level 5 felony possession of a narcotic drug and
FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY
[4] On December 6, 2016, Indianapolis Metropolitan Police Department Officer Christopher Cooper (Officer Cooper), initiated a traffic stop of Springfield‘s GMC Sierra pickup truck since the license plate did not match the vehicle‘s description. After Springfield had pulled to the side of the road, Officer Cooper approached the driver‘s side window and requested Springfield‘s license and registration. At that point, Officer Cooper detected the smell of “raw marijuana” emanating from the vehicle. (Transcript Vol. II, p. 110). Officer Cooper ordered Springfield out of the vehicle. Springfield did not comply. Officer Cooper opened the door and “grabbed [Springfield‘s] left wrist and [] guided him out of the vehicle.” (Tr. Vol. II, p. 113). For his safety, Officer Cooper tried to handcuff Springfield; however, Springfield “tensed up” and then “tried to run southbound.” (Tr. Vol. II, p. 113). Before he had run a great distance, Officer Cooper took Springfield down to the ground. By that time, other officers had arrived at the scene, and they helped with the arrest. Springfield continued to resist arrest and an altercation ensued. During the altercation, Springfield bit one officer and he also struck another officer in the face. Eventually, the officers subdued and handcuffed Springfield.
[5] While patting down Springfield, a .38 revolver handgun was found in Springfield‘s right sweatshirt pocket. In Springfield‘s left sweatshirt pocket, there was a sock that had “multiple baggies of narcotics.” (Tr. Vol. II, p. 143). The drugs later tested positive for eight grams of crack cocaine, three grams of fentanyl, and one gram of marijuana.
[6] On December 12, 2016, the State filed an Information, charging Springfield with Count I, dealing in cocaine while in possession of a firearm, a Level 2 felony; Count II, possession of cocaine and a firearm, a Level 4 felony; Count III, dealing in a narcotic drug while in possession of a firearm, a Level 3 felony; Count IV, possession of a narcotic drug and a firearm, a Level 5 felony; Count V, unlawful possession of a firearm by a SVF, a Level 4 felony; Counts VI-VII, battery resulting in bodily injury to an officer, Level 5 felonies; Count VIII, resisting law enforcement, a Class A misdemeanor; and Count IX, possession of marijuana, a Class B misdemeanor. Also, the State filed a habitual offender charge against Springfield, alleging that he had accumulated at least two prior unrelated felony convictions.
[7] On April 12, 2018, a trifurcated jury trial was held. The first phase of the trial involved all charges except for the Level 4 felony unlawful possession of a firearm by a SVF and the habitual offender charge. At the close of the evidence, the jury found Springfield guilty on Counts II, IV, V, VI, VIII, and IX. During the second phase, the jury found Springfield guilty of Count V, Level 5 felony unlawful possession of a firearm by a SVF. In the third phase, a bench trial was conducted since Springfield had waived his right to a jury trial. During the hearing, the State presented evidence of Springfield‘s prior unrelated convictions in relation to the habitual offender charge. At the close of the evidence, the trial court adjudicated Springfield a habitual offender.
[8] On May 14, 2018, the trial court conducted a sentencing hearing. After the parties had presented evidence, the trial court sentenced Springfield as follows: ten years for Count II, Level 4 felony possession of cocaine and a firearm. That sentence was enhanced by twenty years due
[9] Springfield now appeals. Additional facts will be provided as necessary.
DISCUSSION AND DECISION
[10] Springfield contends that his convictions for Level 4 felony possession of cocaine and a firearm, Level 5 felony possession of a narcotic drug and a firearm, and Level 5 felony unlawful possession of firearm by a SVF violate Indiana‘s Double Jeopardy principles since they were based on the same evidence—i.e., “possession of a single gun.” (Appellant‘s Br. p. 12).
[11]
[12] In addition, the Indiana Supreme Court has acknowledged five situations that violate the Indiana Double Jeopardy clause: (1) conviction and punishment for a crime which is a lesser-included offense of another crime for which the defendant has been convicted and punished; (2) conviction and punishment for a crime which consists of the very same act as another crime for which the defendant has been convicted and punished; (3) conviction and punishment for a crime which consists of the very same act as an element of another crime for which the defendant has been convicted and punished; (4) conviction and punishment for an enhancement of a crime where the enhancement is imposed for the very same behavior or harm as another crime for which the defendant has been convicted and punished; and (5) conviction and punishment for the crime of conspiracy where the overt act that constitutes an element of the conspiracy charge is the very same act as another crime for which the defendant has been convicted and punished. Guyton v. State, 771 N.E.2d 1141, 1143 (Ind. 2002) (Sullivan, J., concurring)). “These rules are sometimes referred to as Justice Sullivan‘s categories because he first enumerated them in his concurring opinion in Richardson.” Zieman v. State, 990 N.E.2d 53, 61 (Ind. Ct. App. 2013).
[13] Springfield argues, based on Guyton‘s Category 5, his convictions for Level 4 felony possession of cocaine and a firearm, and Level 5 felony possession of a
[14] To convict Springfield of possession of cocaine, the State was required to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Springfield “without a valid prescription . . . knowingly or intentionally possesse[d] cocaine[.]”
[15] Further, to convict Springfield of possession of a narcotic drug, the State was required to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Springfield “without a valid prescription . . . knowingly or intentionally possesse[d] . . . a narcotic drug.”
[16] Lastly,
[17] Springfield‘s trial was trifurcated. At the end of the first phase, among other Counts, the jury found Springfield guilty of Level 4 felony possession of cocaine while armed with a firearm, and Level 5 felony possession of a narcotic while armed with a firearm. During the SVF phase, the State moved to incorporate all the evidence from the first phase and it submitted a certified document relative to Springfield‘s prior Class B felony robbery conviction committed in 2004. During closing arguments, the State argued, in part,
[Springfield] had been found guilty of robbery, Class B felony, which classified him as a serious violent felon on December 6[], 2016. Because of that conviction, he is prohibited from lawfully possessing a firearm. You have already found that he possessed the firearm back on December 6[], 2016. Please take this evidence back with you, review it, and find him guilty on this [C]ount.
(Tr. Vol. II, p. 250).
[18] “In situations where a defendant has been convicted of one crime for engaging in the specified additional behavior or causing the specified additional harm, that behavior or harm cannot also be used as an enhancement of a separate crime; either
[19] When two convictions are found to contravene double jeopardy principles, a reviewing court may remedy the violation by reducing either conviction to a less serious form of the same offense if doing so will eliminate the violation. Zieman, 990 N.E.2d at 64. In the alternative, a reviewing court may vacate one of the convictions to eliminate a double jeopardy violation. Id. In making that determination, we must be mindful of the penal consequences that the trial court found appropriate. Id.
[20] Because Springfield was convicted and punished for the enhanced drug offenses, based on the same behavior or harm—possession of a firearm—which formed the basis of his unlawful possession of a firearm by a SVF, double jeopardy principles were violated. To remedy the violation, we are reversing Springfield‘s conviction and accompanying sentence for the Level 5 felony unlawful possession of a firearm. See Richardson, 717 N.E.2d at 54 (indicating that when convictions violate double jeopardy principles, it is proper to vacate the convictions with the less severe penal consequences).
CONCLUSION
[21] Based on the foregoing, we remand with instructions to the trial court to vacate Springfield‘s Level 5 felony unlawful possession of a firearm by SVF, and to sentence him accordingly.
[22] Affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded with instructions.
[23] Kirsch, J. and Robb, J. concur