Gregory Bruce Grider, Jr. v. State of Indiana (mem. dec.)

• Court: Indiana Court of Appeals
• Decided: March 16, 2018
• Docket: 18A05-1706-CR-1484
• Status: Published

Opinion

MEMORANDUM DECISION Pursuant to Ind. Appellate Rule 65(D), this Memorandum Decision shall not be FILED regarded as precedent or cited before any Mar 16 2018, 9:33 am

court except for the purpose of establishing CLERK Indiana Supreme Court the defense of res judicata, collateral Court of Appeals and Tax Court estoppel, or the law of the case.

ATTORNEY FOR APPELLANT ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE Scott L. Barnhart Curtis T. Hill, Jr. Brooke Smith Attorney General of Indiana Keffer Barnhart LLP Henry A. Flores, Jr. Indianapolis, Indiana Deputy Attorney General Indianapolis, Indiana

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA

Gregory Bruce Grider, Jr., March 16, 2018 Appellant-Defendant, Court of Appeals Case No. 18A05-1706-CR-1484 v. Appeal from the Delaware Circuit Court State of Indiana, The Honorable Marianne L. Appellee-Plaintiff. Vorhees, Judge Trial Court Cause No. 18C01-1607-F1-5

Pyle, Judge.

Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 18A05-1706-CR-1484 | March 16, 2018 Page 1 of 11 Statement of the Case [1] Gregory B. Grider, Jr. (“Grider”) appeals his convictions and sentences for two

counts of Level 1 felony attempted murder.1 On appeal, he argues that: (1) the

State presented insufficient evidence to support his convictions; and (2) his

sentence was inappropriate in light of the nature of his offense and his

character. Because we conclude that there was sufficient evidence to support

Grider’s convictions and his sentence was not inappropriate, we affirm the trial

court’s decision.

[2] We affirm.

Issues 1. Whether there was sufficient evidence to convict Grider of attempted murder.

2. Whether Grider’s sentence was inappropriate.

Facts [3] On May 27, 2016, the Delaware County Sheriff’s Office received a 911 call

reporting that a woman, Jennifer Bradford (“Bradford”), was being held

hostage at gunpoint by her boyfriend, Grider. Dispatch warned the officers that

Grider had three active felony arrest warrants and had previously threatened to

“have a shootout with the police.” (Tr. Vol. 2 at 185). Several officers

1 IND. CODE §§ 35-42-1-1(1) and 35-41-5-1.

Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 18A05-1706-CR-1484 | March 16, 2018 Page 2 of 11 convened to determine how to approach the situation and then proceeded to the

reported address to do a welfare check on Bradford.

[4] At the residence, Corporal David Lee Williams (“Corporal Williams”) and

Deputy Anthony Johnson (“Deputy Johnson”) approached the front door while

other officers took up posts around the home. As Corporal Williams and

Deputy Johnson stepped onto the porch, a motion sensor caused a “chime” to

“go off.” (Tr. Vol. 2 at 228). Deputy Johnson, who knew Grider, looked into a

window and identified Grider sitting next to a woman on a couch. He told

Corporal Williams that he could see Grider and then knocked on the door and

announced, “Sheriff’s Office.” (Tr. Vol. 2 at 228). In response, Grider and the

woman stood up and walked toward the back of the home.

[5] Deputy Johnson then tested the door handle, discovered that it was unlocked,

and turned to relay that information to Corporal Williams. When he turned

back around, Grider had returned. However, Grider did not answer the door.

He started to step backwards, so Deputy Johnson knocked on the door and

announced his presence again, this time “a lot more forcefully.” (Tr. Vol. 2 at

234). When Grider did not respond, the officers entered the home and yelled at

him to show his hands. Grider stepped backwards and refused to comply.

Instead, he “blad[ed]” his body so that his head was facing towards the officers

and his body was turned away from them. (Tr. Vol. 3 at 74). At that point,

Deputy Johnson heard a “distinct pop” that sounded “like a firecracker” and

smelled gunpowder. (Tr. Vol. 2 at 244). Corporal Williams saw a muzzle flash

Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 18A05-1706-CR-1484 | March 16, 2018 Page 3 of 11 and heard a “firecracker.” 2 (Tr. Vol. 3 at 75). He also saw Grider holding a

gun and pointing it in the officers’ direction. There was then a “second pop,”

and Deputy Johnson saw a muzzle flash from the area of Grider’s waistline.

(Tr. Vol. 2 at 246). The muzzle flash was pointed in the officers’ direction.

[6] After the second shot, Deputy Johnson shot Grider, and Grider fell to the floor.

As Grider was lying on his left side, he continued to “actively fish[] or search[]”

down by him stomach area with his left hand. (Tr. Vol. 2 at 249). Because

Deputy Johnson believed that Grider was continuing to look for his gun, he

then shot him a second time. At that point, Grider started yelling “I’m done.

I’m done. I’m done,” and the officers were able to take him into custody. (Tr.

Vol. 2 at 249). As they did so, Grider yelled “kill me,” “shoot me in the head,”

and “I wish I was trying to go for my .45.” (Tr. Vol. 3 at 32, 87). The officers

found Grider’s gun in the place where he had been lying.

[7] On July 19, 2016, the State charged Grider with two counts of Level 1 felony

attempted murder. At Grider’s jury trial, Corporal Williams, Deputy Johnson,

and the other officers who had been at the scene testified to the above facts.

Corporal Williams was asked whether he was “absolutely positive [Grider] [had

been] firing at [him] and [Deputy] Johnson,” and Corporal Williams responded

“Yes.” (Tr. Vol. 3 at 94).

2 According to Deputy Johnson, a muzzle flash is a “flash of light” that occurs when a firearm is fired and the powder burns. (Tr. Vol. 2 at 246).

Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 18A05-1706-CR-1484 | March 16, 2018 Page 4 of 11 [8] In addition, Jennifer Davis (“Davis”), a home detention supervisor for the

Delaware County Community Corrections, also testified at Grider’s trial. She

said that, a few months prior to the events that occurred in the instant cause,

Grider had told her that he had previously been in a shootout and that “if the

pigs [came] for [him], they better be prepared for a shootout because [he]

[would] kill them.” (Tr. Vol. 2 at 168). Davis said that she had asked Grider

whether he meant “law enforcement” when he said “pig[s],” and Grider had

responded “yea, like I said, pigs.” (Tr. Vol. 2 at 168).

[9] At the conclusion of the trial, the jury found Grider guilty as charged.

Subsequently, the trial court held a sentencing hearing. At the hearing, the

State introduced Grider’s pre-sentence investigation report (“PSI”), which

revealed that, at twenty-nine years old, Grider had an extensive criminal

history. As a juvenile, he had been adjudicated a delinquent for committing

offenses that would have been considered Class A misdemeanor battery

resulting in bodily injury and Class D felony failure to return to lawful

detention if committed by an adult. As an adult, he had been convicted of five

misdemeanor and four felony offenses, including two convictions for Class D

felony residential entry, one conviction for Class D felony battery resulting in

bodily injury, and one conviction for Class D felony dealing in hashish. The

felony battery resulting in bodily injury conviction was based on Grider’s 2011

attack on a correctional officer while he was incarcerated.

[10] In addition to these convictions, Grider still had three felony and four

misdemeanor charges pending in other causes at the time of the sentencing

Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 18A05-1706-CR-1484 | March 16, 2018 Page 5 of 11 hearing. He had escaped from a treatment facility while on release for the

pending charges, which had resulted in the warrants that had been active for his

arrest when he committed the instant offenses.

[11] The PSI also noted that the “cover page” of Grider’s Facebook account had the

word “Gunemdown” listed in parenthesis.3 (App. Vol. 3 at 99). The PSI

documented that when asked what was meant by “Gunemdown,” Grider had

“smiled and chuckled” and said that a friend had given him that nickname.

(App. Vol. 3 at 99). The probation officer noted that Grider “could not explain

. . . what he felt was funny about the nickname or why his friend [had given]

him the nickname.” (App. Vol. 3 at 99). The State asked him about this

nickname during the sentencing hearing, and Grider said that it was a “joke,”

but he still could not explain why it was a joke. (Tr. Vol. 5 at 129). He said

that the nickname came about because he “grew up with rifles and stuff at [his]

house when [he] was a kid.” (Tr. Vol. 5 at 130).

[12] Grider also testified at the sentencing hearing and told the court that he had

mental illnesses and substance abuse issues and would have lasting health

effects from the bullet wounds he had received when Deputy Johnson shot him.

3 Pursuant to Indiana Administrative Rule 9(G)(2)(b) and INDIANA CODE § 35-38-1-13, the PSI must be excluded from public access. However, in this case the information contained in the PSI is “essential to the resolution” of Grider's claim on appeal. Ind. Admin. Rule 9(G)(7)(a)(ii)(c). Accordingly, we have included confidential information in this decision only to the extent necessary to resolve the appeal.

Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 18A05-1706-CR-1484 | March 16, 2018 Page 6 of 11 [13] At the conclusion of the hearing, the trial court sentenced Grider to forty (40)

years executed for each attempted murder conviction, with the sentences to be

served consecutively, for an aggregate sentence of eighty (80) years. The trial

court gave Grider’s mental health and substance abuse issues “no weight” as

Grider had received “numerous opportunities” to address those issues and had

failed to do so. (Tr. Vol. 5 at 157, 158). The trial court also chose to give

Grider’s physical injuries “no weight” as he had suffered the injuries by

“engaging in the crimes for which he was convicted.” (Tr. 158). Grider now

appeals.

Decision [14] Grider raises two arguments on appeal: (1) there was insufficient evidence to

support his convictions; and (2) his sentence was inappropriate. We will

address each of these arguments in turn.

1. Sufficiency

[15] First, Grider argues that the convictions for attempted murder should be set

aside where the evidence was insufficient to establish that he manifested the

specific intent to kill Corporal Williams and Deputy Johnson. Our standard of

review for sufficiency of the evidence claims is well-settled. We consider only

the probative evidence and reasonable inferences supporting the judgment.

Drane v. State, 867 N.E.2d 144, 146 (Ind. 2007). We do not reweigh the

evidence or judge witness credibility. Id. We will affirm the conviction unless

no reasonable fact finder could find the elements of the crime proven beyond a

Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 18A05-1706-CR-1484 | March 16, 2018 Page 7 of 11 reasonable doubt. Id. The evidence is sufficient if an inference may be

reasonably drawn from it to support the judgment. Id. at 147.

[16] In order to convict Grider of attempted murder, the State had to prove that he

“engage[d] in conduct that constitute[d] a substantial step toward commission

of,” I.C. § 35-41-5-1, “knowingly or intentionally kill[ing] another human

being.” I.C. § 35-42-1-1(1). A conviction for attempted murder requires proof

of a specific intent to kill. Henley v. State, 881 N.E.2d 639, 652 (Ind. 2008).

Because intent is a mental state, intent to kill may be inferred from the

deliberate use of a deadly weapon in a manner likely to cause death or serious

injury. Id. Firing a gun in the direction of an individual is substantial evidence

from which a jury may infer intent to kill. Id.

[17] Here, Grider argues that his statement to Davis that he intended to have a

shootout with any police that came after him was not sufficient to prove his

intent to murder Corporal Williams and Deputy Johnson. However, we need

not consider Grider’s statement to Davis. At Grider’s trial, Corporal Williams

was asked whether he was “absolutely positive [Grider] [had been] firing at

[him] and [Deputy] Johnson,” and Corporal Williams responded “Yes.” (Tr.

Vol. 3 at 94). Further, although Deputy Johnson did not see Grider’s first shot,

he saw Grider holding a gun and pointing it in the officers’ direction during the

second shot. As stated above, firing a gun in the direction of an individual is

substantial evidence from which a jury may infer intent to kill. See Henley, 881

N.E.2d at 652. Accordingly, we conclude that there was sufficient evidence of

Grider’s intent to support his convictions for attempted murder.

Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 18A05-1706-CR-1484 | March 16, 2018 Page 8 of 11 2. Sentencing

[18] Next, Grider argues that his sentence was inappropriate. Under Indiana

Appellate Rule 7(B), we may revise a sentence if it is inappropriate in light of

the nature of the offense and the character of the offender. The defendant has

the burden of persuading us that his sentence is inappropriate. Childress v. State,

848 N.E.2d 1073, 1080 (Ind. 2006). The principal role of a Rule 7(B) review is

“to attempt to leaven the outliers, and identify some guiding principles for trial

courts and those charged with improvement of the sentencing statutes, but not

to achieve a perceived ‘correct’ result in each case.” Cardwell v. State, 895

N.E.2d 1219, 1225 (Ind. 2008). Whether a sentence is inappropriate ultimately

turns on “the culpability of the defendant, the severity of the crime, the damage

done to others, and a myriad of other factors that come to light in a given case.”

Id. at 1224.

[19] When determining whether a sentence is inappropriate, we acknowledge that

the advisory sentence “is the starting point the Legislature has selected as an

appropriate sentence for the crime committed.” Childress, 848 N.E.2d at 1081.

A Level 1 felony has a sentencing range of twenty (20) to forty (40) years with

an advisory sentence of thirty (30) years. As Grider received consecutive forty-

year sentences, his aggregate sentence was the maximum he could receive. He

argues that such a sentence was inappropriate in light of the nature of his

offenses and his character. We disagree.

Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 18A05-1706-CR-1484 | March 16, 2018 Page 9 of 11 [20] With respect to the nature of Grider’s offenses, we note that Grider was a

“fugitive” when he committed the offenses as he had escaped from a treatment

facility after he had been granted release in three separate criminal causes so

that he could seek treatment. (Tr. Vol. 5 at 138). As a result of his escape,

there were three active warrants for his arrest. In order to avoid being arrested,

Grider shot at two uniformed police officers acting in the course of their duties.

Then, even after Deputy Johnson shot Grider, Grider continued to search on

the floor for his gun.

[21] Turning to Grider’s character, we note that his attempted murder convictions

were not the only evidence of his contempt for law enforcement. In his

conversation with his home detention supervisor, he called police officers

“pigs” and said he would get in a “shootout with,” and kill, any “pigs” who

came for him. (Tr. Vol. 2 at 168). He was also convicted in 2011 of Class D

felony battery resulting in bodily injury for attacking a correctional officer while

he was incarcerated. These actions demonstrate, as the trial court

characterized, Grider’s “aggressive, hostile, and violent disdain for law

enforcement officers and our criminal justice system.” (Tr. Vol. 5 at 141).

[22] Grider also has a significant criminal history that includes four felony

convictions and three pending felony charges. He has been given opportunities

to rehabilitate but has failed to take advantage of those opportunities.

Specifically, he was given release in three pending cases so that he could receive

treatment, but he absconded from the treatment facility after four days and did

Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 18A05-1706-CR-1484 | March 16, 2018 Page 10 of 11 not return to custody. Similarly, prior attempts at jail, electronic home

detention, and supervised probation have not rehabilitated Grider.

[23] In light of the above evidence regarding the nature of Grider’s offenses and his

character, we do not find his sentence inappropriate.

[24] Affirmed.

Kirsch, J., and Bailey, J., concur.

Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 18A05-1706-CR-1484 | March 16, 2018 Page 11 of 11