William Russell v. State of Indiana (mem. dec.)

• Court: Indiana Court of Appeals
• Decided: May 31, 2017
• Docket: 69A01-1608-CR-1873
• 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 May 31 2017, 8:42 am court except for the purpose of establishing CLERK the defense of res judicata, collateral Indiana Supreme Court Court of Appeals estoppel, or the law of the case. and Tax Court

ATTORNEY FOR APPELLANT ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE Ross G. Thomas Curtis T. Hill, Jr. Indianapolis, Indiana Attorney General of Indiana

Katherine Cooper Deputy Attorney General Indianapolis, Indiana

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA

William Russell, May 31, 2017 Appellant-Defendant, Court of Appeals Case No. 69A01-1608-CR-1873 v. Appeal from the Ripley Circuit Court State of Indiana, The Honorable Ryan King, Judge Appellee-Plaintiff. Trial Court Cause No. 69C01-1509-F1-2

Barnes, Judge.

Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 69A01-1608-CR-1873 | May 31, 2017 Page 1 of 12 Case Summary [1] William Russell appeals his convictions and sentence for Level 1 felony

attempted murder and Class A misdemeanor carrying a handgun without a

license. We affirm.

Issues [2] The issues Russell raises are:

I. whether the trial court abused its discretion by denying his motion for mistrial following an alleged violation of his right to remain silent under the Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution; and

II. whether his sentence is inappropriate in light of the nature of the offenses and the character of the offender.

Facts [3] In 2015, Dennis Ryker hosted Friday night parties at his parents’ home in

Ripley County. Russell regularly attended the parties. Larry Hurd and

Jonathan Smith also attended the parties. On Friday evening, September 4,

2015, Ryker hosted a party, and Russell, Hurd, and Smith attended. All four

men consumed alcohol at the party. Around 2:00 a.m., the men left the house

to find something to eat. Russell drove himself and Ryker, and Hurd and Smith

drove separately in Hurd’s car. They found an open bar and ordered a round of

drinks. While the men were drinking, two other bar patrons began to argue

Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 69A01-1608-CR-1873 | May 31, 2017 Page 2 of 12 with each other. Smith interceded and coaxed the larger of the two patrons,

Jamie Craft, outside. Craft eventually left the bar.

[4] Smith returned to the bar. Shortly thereafter, around 3:00 a.m. when the bar

was closing, he, Russell, Ryker, and Hurd walked out of the bar’s side door and

toward their vehicles. As the men walked, Smith vented to the group about

Craft’s behavior. Russell told Smith, “Quit being [an] idiot. Quit being a dumb

a**.” Tr. Vol. III p. 30. Smith shook his fist as he walked toward Russell and

said “if [Russell] didn’t stop talking to [him] that way, that [he’d] knock

[Russell’s] F-ing teeth out.” Id. at 155. Russell, who now was standing at his

vehicle, with one foot in the vehicle and one foot on the ground, reached into

the vehicle, retrieved a handgun, and shot Smith in the chest. Smith staggered,

and then brought his hands up and crossed his arms in an X-shape in front of

his face. Russell fired a second time, and the second shot hit Smith in the hand

and forearm and then traveled to Smith’s chest.

[5] Russell threw the gun into his vehicle and drove away from the scene. Smith

was transported to a hospital and survived his injuries. Based upon the

information provided by witnesses at the scene of the shooting, the police began

to search for Russell. Russell evaded the police for two days.

[6] On September 7, 2015, Russell appeared with his attorney at the Ripley County

jail and surrendered to authorities. Two days later, the State charged Russell

with Level 1 felony attempted murder, Level 3 felony aggravated battery, Level

5 felony battery with a deadly weapon, and Class A misdemeanor carrying a

Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 69A01-1608-CR-1873 | May 31, 2017 Page 3 of 12 handgun without a license. Following a four-day jury trial, Russell was found

guilty as charged.

[7] At sentencing, the trial court vacated the Level 3 and Level 5 convictions due to

double jeopardy concerns. The trial court, finding no mitigating factors and

several aggravating factors, imposed consecutive thirty-seven-year and one-year

executed sentences on the remaining convictions for attempted murder and

carrying a handgun without a license, for an aggregate executed sentence of

thirty-eight years.

[8] Russell now appeals. Additional facts will be provided as necessary.

Analysis I. Fifth Amendment Right to Silence

[9] Russell first contends that the trial court abused its discretion by denying his

motion for mistrial following an alleged violation of his Fifth Amendment right

to remain silent. He maintains that the State’s “use [during trial] of [his] post-

arrest silence and lack of cooperation [with the investigation] both substantively

and in an attempt to impeach [him] violated his rights under the [Fifth] and

Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution and denied him a

fair trial.” Appellant’s Br. p. 14.

[10] At trial, Indiana State Police Detective Kip Main testified during the State’s

case-in-chief that he read the arrest warrant to Russell when Russell arrived at

the jail with his lawyer and surrendered to the authorities. Detective Main

Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 69A01-1608-CR-1873 | May 31, 2017 Page 4 of 12 stated that, after Russell was taken into custody, “[t]he investigation continued.

Even, even with the arrest of that day, part of the process is interviewing people

and, you know, I wanted to get a statement from William Russell.” Tr. Vol. IV p. 21

(emphasis added). Russell objected and moved for a mistrial. The trial court

denied the motion but admonished the jury not to consider Detective Main’s

comment regarding wanting to take a statement from Russell.

[11] “A mistrial is an extreme remedy that is warranted only when less severe

remedies will not satisfactorily correct the error.” Banks v. State, 761 N.E.2d

403, 405 (Ind. 2002). A decision on a motion for mistrial lies within the sound

discretion of the trial court, and we reverse only upon a showing of an abuse of

that discretion. Francis v. State, 758 N.E.2d 528, 532 (Ind. 2001). To prevail,

the appellant must show that he was placed in a position of grave peril to which

he should not have been subjected. Id. The gravity of peril is measured by the

probable persuasive effect on the jury’s decision. Oliver v. State, 755 N.E.2d 582,

585 (Ind. 2001). The trial judge is in the best position to gauge the surrounding

circumstances and the potential impact on the jury when deciding whether a

mistrial is appropriate. Id.

[12] The Fifth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, made applicable to the states

through the Fourteenth Amendment, provides that no person shall be

compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself. U.S. Const.

amend. V; Cox v. State, 854 N.E.2d 1187, 1193 (Ind. Ct. App. 2006). A suspect

is informed of this right to remain silent, among others, when given what is

Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 69A01-1608-CR-1873 | May 31, 2017 Page 5 of 12 1 commonly known as the Miranda rights. Using as evidence of guilt that the

suspect remained silent during police questioning can be a violation of the Fifth

Amendment. See United States v. Hernandez, 948 F.2d 316, 322 (7th Cir. 1991).

Determining whether the use of the defendant’s silence is a violation of the

Fifth Amendment turns on the manner in which the prosecution used the

evidence and if the silence was before or after the defendant was read the 2 Miranda rights.

[13] In Doyle v. Ohio, 426 U.S. 610, 96 S. Ct. 2240 (1976), the United States Supreme

Court held that using a defendant’s silence, which occurred after arrest and

receiving Miranda warnings, for impeachment purposes violates the Due

Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. Id. at 619, 96 S. Ct. at 2245.

The underlying rationale was that use of a defendant’s post-arrest, post-Miranda

silence to impeach an explanation subsequently offered at trial would be

contrary to the Miranda warnings’ implicit assurance to an individual in police

custody that silence will carry no penalty. Id. at 618, 96 S. Ct. at 2245. The

United States Supreme Court has also held a defendant’s post-arrest, post-

Miranda silence could not be used substantively in the prosecution’s case-in-

chief. See Wainwright v. Greenfield, 474 U.S. 284, 295, 106 S. Ct. 634, 641, 88 L.

1 See Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436, 479, 86 S. Ct. 1602, 1630, 16 L. Ed. 2d 694 (1966) (“He must be warned prior to any questioning that he has the right to remain silent, that anything he says can be used against him in a court of law, that he has the right to the presence of an attorney, and that if he cannot afford an attorney one will be appointed for him prior to any questioning if he so desires.”).

2 We note that no evidence was presented at trial as to when Russell received his Miranda warnings.

Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 69A01-1608-CR-1873 | May 31, 2017 Page 6 of 12 Ed. 2d 623 (1986). Whether a defendant’s post-arrest, pre-Miranda silence may

be used substantively has yet to be addressed by the United States Supreme

Court, but Indiana courts have held that post-arrest, pre-Miranda silence cannot

be used as substantive evidence in the State’s case-in-chief. See Rowe v. State,

717 N.E.2d 1262, 1267 (Ind. Ct. App. 1999); see also Akard v. State, 924 N.E.2d

202, 209 (Ind. Ct. App. 2010), aff’d in part and reversed in part on other grounds,

937 N.E.2d 811 (Ind. 2010).

[14] Here, the record does not reveal when Russell received his Miranda warnings.

Regardless of whether Russell’s silence was pre-Miranda or post-Miranda, we

find no reversible error.

[15] The statement elicited from Detective Main during the State’s case-in-chief, “I

wanted to get a statement from William Russell,” was brief, nonspecific, and

did not indicate that Russell had refused to speak with the detective. Tr. Vol.

IV p. 21. Russell’s counsel objected immediately and moved for a mistrial.

After discussion at sidebar, the trial court denied the mistrial motion but did

admonish the jury by stating: “Ladies and gentlemen of the jury, the Court

directs you to, uh, disregard the last statement that was made by the witness

testifying.” Id. at 33.

[16] Reversible error is seldom found when the trial court has admonished the jury

to disregard a statement made during the proceedings. Alvies v. State, 795

N.E.2d 493, 506 (Ind. Ct. App. 2003), trans. denied. A timely and accurate

admonition to the jury is presumed to sufficiently protect a defendant’s rights

Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 69A01-1608-CR-1873 | May 31, 2017 Page 7 of 12 and remove any error created by the objectionable statement. Id. Here, the trial

court determined that an admonishment was sufficient and that mistrial was

not warranted. Russell has not shown that the detective’s statement placed him

in a position of grave peril to which he should not have been subjected. We

presume the trial court’s timely and accurate admonishment in this case

sufficiently protected Russell’s rights.

[17] We find that no violation of Russell’s Fifth or Fourteenth Amendment rights

occurred. We conclude that the trial court did not abuse its discretion when it

denied his motion for a mistrial.

II. Appropriateness of Sentence

[18] Russell argues that his thirty-eight-year sentence is inappropriate in light of the

nature of the offenses and his character. According to Russell, when the trial

court sentenced him, it should have considered that, at the time of the shooting,

Russell “acted under strong provocation and that the victim played a role in

facilitating the offense” by threatening Russell with bodily harm. Appellant’s

Br. p. 16. Russell also contends that his general character is not one of

violence, that he demonstrated a strong history of employment prior to

suffering medical problems that left him with a permanent disability, he

expressed remorse that the shooting occurred and a willingness to pay

restitution, and his risk to reoffend is low.

[19] We may revise a sentence if it is “inappropriate in light of the nature of the

offense and the character of the offender.” Ind. Appellate Rule 7(B). Whether

Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 69A01-1608-CR-1873 | May 31, 2017 Page 8 of 12 the reviewing court regards a sentence as inappropriate turns on a “sense of the

culpability of the defendant, the severity of the crime, the damage done to

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

State, 895 N.E.2d 1219, 1224 (Ind. 2008). This Court “must give ‘deference to a

trial court’s sentencing decision, both because Rule 7(B) requires us to give due

consideration to that decision and because we understand and recognize the

unique perspective a trial court brings to its sentencing decisions.’” Gil v. State,

988 N.E.2d 1231, 1237 (Ind. Ct. App. 2013) (quoting Stewart v. State, 866

N.E.2d 858, 866 (Ind. Ct. App. 2007)). Russell bears the burden of persuading

us that his sentence is inappropriate. Reid v. State, 876 N.E.2d 1114, 1116 (Ind.

2007).

[20] When considering the nature of the offense, the advisory sentence is the starting

point to determine the appropriateness of a sentence. See Anglemyer v. State, 868

N.E.2d 482, 494 (Ind. 2007), clarified on reh’g, 875 N.E.2d 218 (Ind. 2007).

Russell was found guilty of Level 1 felony attempted murder and Class A

misdemeanor carrying a handgun without a license. The sentencing range for a

Level 1 felony is “a fixed term of between twenty (20) and forty (40) years, with

the advisory sentence being thirty (30) years.” Ind. Code § 35-50-2-4(b). The

sentencing range for a Class A misdemeanor is “a fixed term of not more than

one (1) year.” Ind. Code § 35-50-3-2. The trial court found as aggravating

circumstances that the victim, Smith, suffered significant injuries greater than

the elements necessary to prove the attempted murder count, that Smith’s

family will suffer hardship, that Russell showed a total lack of remorse, and that

Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 69A01-1608-CR-1873 | May 31, 2017 Page 9 of 12 Russell had misdemeanor criminal history and a prior probation violation. The

court imposed consecutive sentences of thirty-seven years for the Level 1 felony

and one year for the Class A misdemeanor. The sentence for the Level 1 felony

was above the advisory sentence but below the maximum advised by the

General Assembly.

[21] Regarding the nature of Russell’s handgun offense, he allowed his license to

carry the handgun to lapse and he did not bother to renew it. As for the

attempted murder offense, it was indisputably callous. After a verbal

altercation, Russell reached into his vehicle, pulled out his handgun, and fired

two shots – aiming for Smith’s chest. The first shot hit Smith in his chest.

Because Smith attempted to shield himself by raising his arms and hands into

an X-shape, the second shot hit the pinky finger of his right hand and his left

forearm, and then lodged into his chest. Smith’s forearm was shattered, his

pinky finger was amputated, and the bullet remains lodged in Smith’s chest.

Smith has undergone multiple surgeries to repair his forearm. He has lost fifty

percent of the strength he had in his right hand. Based on the foregoing, we

conclude that the nature of Russell’s offenses did not render his sentence

inappropriate.

[22] Our review of the character of the offender reveals that Russell’s criminal

history consisted of three misdemeanor driving while suspended convictions

from 2009 and 2010. Russell had one prior probation violation in 2010. The

trial court found several aggravators including Russell’s lack of remorse,

evidenced by statements Russell uttered when he made calls from the Ripley

Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 69A01-1608-CR-1873 | May 31, 2017 Page 10 of 12 County jail: “that’s what happens when you’re my friend . . . I miss,” and “this

[shooting someone] was bound to happen some time.” App. p. 59. The trial

court gave “substantial weight” to all of the aggravators except Russell’s

criminal history, to which the court gave “little weight,” finding that it was not

a “substantial aggravating factor.” App. p. 59; Tr. Vol. VII p. 48. The court

considered the evidence presented at trial that Smith might have provoked

Russell; however, the court determined that this could not serve as a mitigator

because Russell possessed a handgun without a license, and “[b]ut for that

illegal possession of a handgun, nobody’s ever here [before the trial court].” Tr.

Vol. VII p. 49.

[23] Russell carried a handgun for which he had no license. After a verbal

altercation, he shot Smith twice in the chest, causing significant injuries,

immediately left the scene of the shooting, and hid from the police for two days.

During jail-house phone calls, Russell spoke of the shooting in a flippant

manner. Russell’s criminal history, though light, showed a pattern for

disregarding the law. Russell’s character does not persuade us to modify his

sentence. We find that Russell’s thirty-eight-year sentence is not inappropriate

in light of the nature of the offenses and his character.

Conclusion [24] The trial court properly denied Russell’s motion for a mistrial, and his sentence

is not inappropriate. We affirm.

[25] Affirmed.

Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 69A01-1608-CR-1873 | May 31, 2017 Page 11 of 12 Kirsch, J., and Robb, J., concur.

Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 69A01-1608-CR-1873 | May 31, 2017 Page 12 of 12