Myles K. Martin, Jr. v. State of Indiana (rehearing)

• Court: Indiana Court of Appeals
• Decided: June 10, 2016
• Docket: 82A01-1507-CR-966
• Status: Published

Opinion

FILED Jun 10 2016, 8:37 am MEMORANDUM DECISION ON REHEARING CLERK Indiana Supreme Court Court of Appeals and Tax Court

ATTORNEY FOR APPELLANT ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE Yvette M. LaPlante Gregory F. Zoeller Keating & LaPlante, LLP Attorney General of Indiana Evansville, Indiana Eric P. Babbs Deputy Attorney General Indianapolis, Indiana

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA

Myles K. Martin, Jr, June 10, 2016 Appellant-Defendant, Court of Appeals Case No. 82A01-1507-CR-966 v. Appeal from the Vanderburgh Superior Court State of Indiana, The Honorable Robert J. Pigman, Appellee-Plaintiff. Judge Trial Court Cause No. 82D02-1404-FB-418

Najam, Judge.

Statement of the Case [1] Myles K. Martin, Jr. petitions for rehearing following our memorandum

decision in which we affirmed his convictions. See Martin v. State, No. 82A01-

Court of Appeals of Indiana|Memorandum Decision on Rehearing 82A01-1507-CR-966| June 10, 2016

Page 1 of 3 1507-CR-966 (Ind. Ct. App. Mar. 17, 2016). We grant Martin’s petition to

address the following issue: whether the trial court violated the prohibition

against double jeopardy under the Fifth Amendment to the United States

Constitution when the court entered its judgment of conviction against Martin

for both resisting law enforcement, as a Class D felony, and resisting law

enforcement, as a Class A misdemeanor. We agree with Martin that the entry

of the judgment of conviction on both of those offenses violated double

jeopardy principles. Accordingly, we grant Martin’s petition for rehearing and

reverse his conviction for resisting law enforcement, as a Class A misdemeanor,

and we remand with instructions that the trial court vacate that conviction and

its related sentence. In all other respects, we affirm our original memorandum

decision.

Facts and Procedural History [2] We need not restate all the facts underlying Martin’s convictions in this

decision. Rather, as relevant to rehearing, we need only consider the following

facts: on March 29, 2014, officers attempted to stop Martin as he drove a stolen

SUV, but Martin used the vehicle to flee. After a brief chase, officers disabled

the vehicle, which Martin immediately abandoned. He then fled from the

officers on foot before being apprehended.

[3] According to the State’s ensuing charging information, Martin committed

resisting law enforcement, as a Class D felony, when he fled from officers in the

SUV. The State separately charged Martin with resisting law enforcement, as a

Court of Appeals of Indiana|Memorandum Decision on Rehearing 82A01-1507-CR-966| June 10, 2016

Page 2 of 3 Class A misdemeanor, when he fled on foot. The State’s evidence and

arguments at trial comported with the charging information, and the trial court

entered judgment of conviction against Martin on both counts.

Discussion and Decision [4] The entry of the judgment of conviction against Martin for both resisting law

enforcement, as a Class D felony, and resisting law enforcement, as a Class A

misdemeanor, violated the constitutional prohibition against double jeopardy.

As we recently explained, when a defendant flees from law enforcement by a

vehicle and then exits that vehicle to continue fleeing by foot, the defendant has

committed one continuous act of resisting law enforcement. Lewis v. State, 43

N.E.3d 689, 691 (Ind. Ct. App. 2015) (following Arthur v. State, 824 N.E.2d

383, 387 (Ind. Ct. App. 2005), trans. denied). Martin’s facts are substantively

identical to those in Lewis and Arthur. Accordingly, we grant Martin’s petition

for rehearing to clarify our original memorandum decision and correct this

constitutional error. We reverse Martin’s conviction for resisting law

enforcement, as a Class A misdemeanor, and we remand with instructions that

the trial court vacate that conviction and its related sentence.

[5] In all other respects, we affirm our original memorandum decision.

May, J., concurs.

Riley, J., would deny rehearing without opinion.

Court of Appeals of Indiana|Memorandum Decision on Rehearing 82A01-1507-CR-966| June 10, 2016

Page 3 of 3