Correa v. State

1

Juan Manuel Correa, Jr., Appellant-Defendant, v. State of Indiana, Appellee-Plaintiff.

No. 23A-CR-229

Court of Appeals of Indiana

October 26, 2023

Pursuant to Ind. Appellate Rule 65(D), this Memorandum Decision is not binding precedent for any court and may be cited only for persuasive value or to establish res judicata, collateral estoppel, or law of the case.

Appeal from the Tippecanoe Superior Court The Honorable Randy J Williams, Judge Trial Court Cause No. 79D01-2109-F4-37

ATTORNEY FOR APPELLANT Patrick I. Jones Withered Burns, LLP

ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE Theodore E. Rokita Attorney General of Indiana Samuel J. Dayton Deputy Attorney General

MEMORANDUM DECISION

Tavitas, Judge.

Case Summary

[¶1] Juan Correa was convicted of unlawful possession of a firearm by a serious violent felon and was sentenced to ten years in the Department of Correction ("DOC") with two years suspended to probation. Correa appeals and argues: (1) his statements to law enforcement regarding his possession of a gun were inadmissible because he was not advised of his Miranda^[1] rights; (2) the State presented insufficient evidence to support his conviction; and (3) his sentence is inappropriate. We find Correa's arguments without merit and, accordingly, affirm.

Issues

[¶2] Correa raises three issues, which we restate as:

I. Whether Correa's statements to law enforcement regarding his possession of a gun were inadmissible because Correa was not advised of his Miranda rights.

II. Whether the State presented sufficient evidence to support Correa's conviction.

III. Whether Correa's sentence is inappropriate.

Facts

[¶3] On August 11, 2021, William Dingess was driving a semi-truck from Indianapolis to a Meijer located in Lafayette. At approximately 1:30 a.m., as Dingess was slowing the trailer down on an exit ramp, Correa entered the cabin from the passenger side. Correa looked nervous and said that "someone was after him ...." Tr. Vol. II p. 85. Dingess texted the person he planned to meet at the Meijer and told the person to contact the police, and Dingess continued driving.

[¶4] When Dingess arrived at the Meijer, law enforcement was already on the scene. Dingess opened the passenger side door, and Correa immediately placed his hands up. Lafayette Police Department Officer Matthew Wozniak instructed Correa to "come on down." State's Ex. 1 at 3:29. As Correa stepped out of the cabin, an item fell from where he was seated. The following exchange then took place:

Correa: I think it's going down my pant leg.

Officer Wozniak: What?

Correa: I think it's going down my pant leg.

Officer Wozniak: Huh?

Correa: I think it's going down my pant leg.

Officer Wozniak: What?

Correa: The gun.

Officer Wozniak: The what?

Correa: The gun.

Officer Wozniak: You have a gun?

Correa: Yeah. [Inaudible].

Officer Wozniak: Detain him.

Id. at 3:34-3:50.

[¶5] Law enforcement searched Correa's person but did not find a gun. Law enforcement then obtained Dingess's consent to search the cabin of the semitruck and found a twenty-two caliber handgun on the left side of the gear shift between the two seats. Correa later told the officers that he found the gun "in a ditch." Id. at 11:51-12:10. DNA testing of the handgun was inconclusive.

[¶6] At the time these events took place, Correa was in community corrections and serving a thirty-one-year sentence for burglary, a Class B felony, and intimidation by drawing or using a deadly weapon, a Class C felony, which included a gang enhancement, in Cause No. 79D01-1103-FB-8 ("Cause No. 11-3-FB8"). The State charged Correa with unlawful possession of a firearm by a serious violent felon, a Level 4 felony.^[2] [¶7] The trial court held a jury trial in December 2022. The parties stipulated that, based on Correa's criminal history, Correa was a "serious violent felon" as defined by Indiana Code Section 35-47-4-5. Officer Wozniak testified regarding Correa's statement that he had a gun, and the State admitted the body camera footage of this interaction with "no objection" from Correa. Tr. Vol. II p. 91. Dingess testified that he neither owns nor carries a gun, nor does he allow other people to ride with him in his semi-truck.

[¶8] Correa testified in his own defense and denied possessing the gun. According to Correa, he was under the influence of methamphetamine at the time the alleged offense took place.

[¶9] The jury found Correa guilty of unlawful possession of a firearm by a serious violent felon, and the trial court entered judgment of conviction thereon. The trial court held a sentencing hearing on January 6, 2023. The trial court found as aggravators Correa's criminal history and the fact that Correa violated the conditions of his community corrections placement and probation in Cause No. 11-3-FB8. The trial court found no mitigators and sentenced Correa to ten years in the DOC, with two years suspended to probation. Correa now appeals.

Discussion and Decision

I. Admission of Evidence-Fundamental Error

[¶10] Correa first argues that the trial court erred by admitting the body camera footage, which contains Correa's statements to law enforcement that he had a gun. We are not persuaded.

A. Waiver

[¶11] As a threshold matter, we reject the State's argument that Correa waived his challenge to the admission of the body camera footage by stating that he did not object to the admission of the footage at trial. Our Supreme Court has held that, where a party does not merely fail to object to the challenged evidence, but affirmatively states that he or she has "no objection" to the admission of the evidence, appellate review of the evidentiary challenge might be foreclosed. Halliburton v. State, 1 N.E.3d 670, 678-79 (Ind. 2013). For example, in Halliburton, the defendant appealed the admission of gruesome photographs at trial. Our Supreme Court held that appellate review was unavailable because the defendant "did not simply 'fail'" to object to the photographs but "expressly said 'no objection' or 'I have no objection.'" Id. The Court stated, "'[t]he appellant cannot on the one hand state at trial that he has no objection to the admission of evidence and thereafter in this Court claim such admission to be erroneous.'" Id. at 679 (quoting Harrison v. State, 258 Ind. 359, 281 N.E.2d 98, 100 (1972)).

[¶12] The State argues that Correa's challenge to the admission of the body camera footage is waived because, as in Halliburton, Correa did not merely fail to object to the admission of the body camera footage but affirmatively stated that he had "no objection" to it. Tr. Vol. II p. 91. Correa, however, argues that Halliburton is not controlling here because, unlike in Halliburton, Correa raises a constitutional challenge to the admission of the body camera footage.

[¶13] Our Courts have occasionally held that a defendant waives appellate review of constitutional issues when the defendant invites the error. See Bush v. State, 208 N.E.3d 605, 611 (Ind.Ct.App. 2023) (citing Batchelor v. State, 119 N.E.3d 550, 556 (Ind. 2019)) (defendant waived double jeopardy challenge by requesting jury instruction that "invited the jury to consider the same evidence" present in prior, acquitted offense). The State, however, does not argue that the doctrine of invited error applies here, and we "'indulge every reasonable presumption against waiver" of "fundamental constitutional rights." Cheesman v. State, 100 N.E.3d 263, 269 (Ind.Ct.App. 2018) (quoting Johnson v. Zerbst, 304 U.S. 458, 464 (1938)), trans. denied. Accordingly, we do not find that Correa has waived his challenge to the trial court's admission of the body camera footage.

B. Miranda Warnings

[¶14] Turning to the merits of Correa's challenge, Correa recognizes that he did not object to the admission of the body camera footage and that we, therefore, only review his challenge for fundamental error. See Stephenson v. State, 29 N.E.3d 111, 118 (Ind. 2015) (holding when the challenging party fails to timely object to the admission of evidence at trial, challenges to the evidence on appeal are "procedurally foreclose[d]" unless the challenging party demonstrates that the "admission constitutes fundamental error"). "An error is fundamental, and thus reviewable despite failure to object, if it made a fair trial impossible or constituted a clearly blatant violation of basic and elementary principles of due process presenting an undeniable and substantial potential for harm." Alexander v. State, 197 N.E.3d 367, 370 (Ind.Ct.App. 2022) (quoting Young v. State, 30 N.E.3d 719, 726 (Ind. 2015)).

[¶15] Correa argues that his statements regarding his possession of a gun are inadmissible because he was not advised of his Miranda rights. Pursuant to the United States Supreme Court's decision in Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436, 86 S.Ct. 1602 (1966), "'a person questioned by law enforcement officers after being taken into custody or otherwise deprived of his freedom of action in any significant way must first be warned that he has a right to remain silent, that any statement he does make may be used as evidence against him, and that he has a right to the presence of an attorney, either retained or appointed.'" State v. Brown, 70 N.E.3d 331, 335 (Ind. 2017) (quoting Stansbury v. California, 511 U.S. 318, 322, 114 S.Ct. 1526 (1994)) (internal quotation marks omitted). Thus, "[t]he trigger to require the announcement of Miranda rights is custodial interrogation." Id.

[¶16] A person is in "custody" when "there has been a 'formal arrest or restraint on freedom of movement of the degree associated with a formal arrest.'" Id. (quoting Stansbury, 511 U.S. at 322). As for what constitutes "interrogation," our Supreme Court has explained:

"[I]nterrogation" refers to either express

...