Shorter v. State

151 N.E.3d 296

Robert SHORTER, Appellant-Defendant,

v.STATE of Indiana, Appellee-Plaintiff

Court of Appeals Case No. 19A-CR-2904

Court of Appeals of Indiana.

FILED July 6, 2020

Attorneys for Appellant: Marietto V. Massillamany, Erica Guernsey, Massillamany Jeter & Carson LLP, Fishers, Indiana

Attorneys for Appellee: Curtis T. Hill, Jr., Attorney General of Indiana, Megan M. Smith, Deputy Attorney General, Indianapolis, Indiana

Baker, Judge.

[1] Robert Shorter appeals his convictions for Level 2 Felony Dealing in Methamphetamine,¹ Level 3 Felony Dealing in a Narcotic Drug,² Level 3 Felony Conspiracy to Commit Dealing in a Narcotic Drug,³ and Level 3 Felony Aiding, Inducing, or Causing Dealing in Methamphetamine.⁴ He argues that (1) the trial court erred in its decision to admit certain evidence, thereby violating both the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution and Article 1, Section 11 of the Indiana Constitution, and (2) the evidence was insufficient to support the conviction. Finding no error and that the evidence was sufficient, we affirm.

Facts

[2] In June 2018, the Anderson Police Department received an anonymous complaint that Shorter and Lewis Martin had traveled from Detroit to Anderson to sell drugs. On July 18, 2018, a confidential informant for the Anderson Police Department contacted Shorter to purchase methamphetamine. Shorter at first agreed to sell the informant methamphetamine, but later informed her that he could only sell her heroin and told her to contact Martin if she wanted methamphetamine. Shorter gave the informant Martin's contact information and put her in touch with Martin so she could arrange a purchase of methamphetamine from him. Later that same day, per Martin and the informant's arrangement, the informant met Martin at the predetermined location and gave him $200 in exchange for seven grams of methamphetamine.

[3] The same day, after this first transaction, the informant contacted Shorter again requesting to purchase heroin. Shorter agreed to sell seven grams and gave the informant a residential address where she would meet him to purchase the heroin. The informant went to the address and met up with Shorter; the two went into the kitchen, where Shorter removed a package of drugs from a cabinet, weighed out the seven grams he had agreed to sell, and then exchanged the heroin for money from the informant. Following the exchange, Shorter "made [the informant] do the heroin" that was left sitting on the table, and though she tried to "wipe[ ] it off the table without him knowin'," she did end up "gettin' some in [her] nose." Tr. Vol. III p. 42-43. As a result, after the buy, officers immediately transported the informant to be medically examined.

[4] On July 23, 2018, Shorter called the informant asking for help "to get him out of town." Id. at 45. He told her he "was scared and paranoid" and that he "knew everybody was looking for him because ... all [his] locations had ... been hit," and he wanted "someone he could trust" to help him leave town. Id. Shorter disclosed his location, which the informant then provided to officers. When officers arrived at the location, the front door was open and they could observe Shorter, who was still wearing the same clothing he wore when he sold heroin to the informant, sitting on a couch inside. The officers surveilled and observed him for about twenty to thirty minutes before Shorter exited the residence, walked a few feet toward a detached garage while "looking very intently at the ground," and eventually stopped and bent over a few feet away from the garage, in a manner "very similar to someone who was bent over ... tying their shoes but you just couldn't see [his] hands." Id. at 114-15. Shorter then stood up and walked back into the residence.

[5] Officers on the scene continued observing the residence for another fifteen minutes or so until additional uniformed officers arrived; during that time, nobody else was observed entering or exiting the residence. Once the additional officers arrived, officers approached the residence and instructed Shorter to put his hands up, at which point Shorter complied and stood up, and "threw a large amount of money up in the air" that had been in his hands. Id. at 10. Officers then arrested Shorter without incident.⁵

[6] Holly Brewer, the primary resident of the home at which officers apprehended Shorter, consented to a search of the residence. A K-9 unit conducted a sweep of the exterior of the residence and the K-9 alerted at a spot outside the detached garage, around the place where officers had observed Shorter bent over. Officers noticed that a rock or stepping stone where the K-9 alerted "wasn't in the ground like the rest of em'" and turned it over, discovering underneath it a sock containing a bag of methamphetamine and a bag of a mixture of heroin and diphenhydramine. Id. at 88. A search inside the residence produced a digital scale with white residue on it and baggies on the table where Shorter had been sitting.

[7] Officers had been unable to obtain a warrant for Shorter's arrest after the controlled heroin buy because they had no personal identifiers for Shorter necessary for obtaining a warrant.⁶ Officers nonetheless believed they had probable cause to arrest Shorter based on the controlled buy. In an interview with officers, Shorter provided a false name and identification and made several incriminating statements. See id. at 216-28. After being told that the interviewing detective was working narcotics, Shorter admitted that he knew Martin, knew where Martin was located, and that Martin "brought [him] down here" and "made [him] work." Id. at 217. The detective told Shorter he would be charged with dealing heroin and that officers had purchased heroin from him, to which Shorter merely responded "[s]h*t." Id. at 222. Shorter never denied selling the drugs, and instead told the detective that he "didn't deal[ ] to you man" and "you don't look like nobody I sellin' that to." Id. at 222, 228.

[8] On July 25, 2018, the State charged Shorter with one count of Level 2 felony dealing in methamphetamine, two counts of Level 3 felony dealing in a narcotic drug, and one count of Level 6 felony identity deception. On October 20, 2018, the State filed an amended charging information alleging that Shorter was an habitual offender. On January 29, 2019, the State filed a motion to amend the charging information, which the trial court granted, that amended one count of dealing in a narcotic drug to Level 3 felony conspiracy to commit dealing in a narcotic drug and added a charge of Level 3 felony aiding, inducing, or causing dealing in methamphetamine. On September 16, 2019, the State moved to dismiss the identity deception charge, which the trial court granted.

[9] A jury trial was held September 16 and 18, 2019. Shorter filed a motion to suppress certain statements and evidence surrounding his arrest, and the trial court denied the motion. At the conclusion of the trial, outside the presence of the jury, the State chose to not proceed with the habitual offender enhancement. The jury found Shorter guilty of all other remaining charges: Level 2 felony dealing in methamphetamine, Level 3 dealing in a narcotic drug, Level 3 felony conspiracy to commit dealing in a narcotic drug, and Level 3 felony aiding, inducing, or causing dealing in methamphetamine. On November 12, 2019, the trial court sentenced Shorter to twenty-three years for dealing in methamphetamine and ten years each for the three Level 3 felony convictions, all to run concurrently, for an aggregate sentence of twenty-three years in the Department of Correction. Shorter now appeals.

Discussion and Decision

I. Admission of Evidence

[10] Shorter's first argument on appeal is that the trial court erred when it denied his motion to suppress and admitted evidence obtained as a result of his warrantless arrest and the warrantless search of Brewer's home, thereby violating both the Fourth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution and Article 1, Section 11 of the Indiana Constitution.

[11] Because Shorter is appealing the denial of the motion to suppress after a completed trial, the appeal is best framed as one challenging the trial court's admission of evidence. Clark v. State , 994 N.E.2d 252, 259 (Ind. 2013). Admission or exclusion of evidence is within the trial court's sound discretion and is given great deference on appeal. Hall v. State , 36 N.E.3d 459, 466 (Ind. 2015). We will reverse a trial court's ruling on the admissibility of evidence only if the decision is clearly against the logic and effect of the facts and circumstances or if the trial court has misinterpreted the law. Id. When a challenge to a trial court's ruling on the admissibility of evidence turns on an alleged constitutional violation, as it does here, the issue raises a question of law and our review is de novo. E.g. , Pinner v. State , 74 N.E.3d 226, 229 (Ind. 2017).

A. Fourth Amendment

[12] With regards to the Fourth Amendment, Shorter argues that the warrantless arrest and search of the home were unconstitutional and that certain evidence obtained from the arrest and search should have been suppressed. More specifically, Shorter contends that law enforcement violated Shorter's reasonable expectation of privacy guaranteed by the Fourth Amendment "when they entered [Shorter's] temporary home, absent exigent circumstances, and without a warrant to search and seize him." Appellant's Br. p. 12. As a result, he claims, "statements Shorter made at the police station following his arrest and the drugs found in Brewer's yard under a rock" were improperly admitted as evidence by the trial court. Appellant's Reply Br. p. 5.⁷

[13] The Fourth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution provides, in relevant part, that "[t]he right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated; and no warrant shall issue, but upon...