Williams v. State

1

Robert L. Williams, Appellant-Defendant, v. State of Indiana, Appellee-Plaintiff.

No. 23A-CR-1040

Court of Appeals of Indiana

January 23, 2024

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 Appellate Rule 65(D), this Memorandum Decision is not binding precedent for any court and may be cited only for persuasive value or to establish res judicata, collateral estoppel, or law of the case.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. 79D01-2103-F1-000005

ATTORNEY FOR APPELLANT Carlos I. Carrillo Carrillo Law LLC Greenwood, Indiana

ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE Theodore E. Rokita Indiana Attorney General George P. Sherman Supervising Deputy Attorney General Indianapolis, Indiana

MEMORANDUM DECISION

Felix Judge.

Statement of the Case

[¶1] After a one-day bench trial, Robert Williams was found guilty of attempted murder, a Level 1 felony;^[1] aggravated battery, a Level 3 felony;^[2] and pointing a firearm, a Level 6 felony^[3]. At sentencing, the trial court vacated the latter two convictions and sentenced Williams to 35 years on the attempted murder conviction, with 30 years executed at the Indiana Department of Correction (the "DOC") and the remaining five years suspended to supervised probation. Williams presents three issues for our review, which we restate as follows:

1. Whether the State presented sufficient evidence to support a finding that Williams had specific intent for attempted murder; 2. Whether the trial court erred in not sua sponte ordering a competency evaluation of Williams; and 3. Whether Williams's sentence is inappropriate under Indiana Appellate Rule 7(B).

[¶2] We affirm.

Facts and Procedural History

[¶3] Between approximately 11:00 pm and 11:30 pm on March 6, 2021, Daryl Johnson walked to a Marathon Gas Station near his residence in Lafayette, Indiana, in search of a ride to a nearby location. Johnson approached Williams-who was a stranger to Johnson at that time-and Williams agreed to drive Johnson to and from Johnson's desired location in exchange for five dollars. Johnson paid Williams the five dollars from a set of folded bills amounting to almost $200. Williams had a dog in his car when he transported Johnson. After Williams dropped off Johnson at the Marathon Gas Station, Johnson returned to his residence.

[¶4] Approximately one to two hours later, in the early hours of March 7, 2021, Johnson went to the same Marathon Gas Station to purchase a soft drink. Williams, who was also at the gas station again, approached Johnson and demanded Johnson pay him for allegedly dropping something that the dog in Williams's car allegedly ingested. Johnson refused to give Williams money without seeing a receipt for the dog's veterinary care. Williams then attempted to direct Johnson into a nearby alley. Concerned that Williams was going to rob him, Johnson began backing away from Williams while Williams told Johnson that he wanted money.

[¶5] As Johnson was backing away from Williams, Johnson saw Williams pull a gun out of his waistband area and chamber a round. When Johnson turned to run from Williams, Williams shot Johnson in the leg near his hip. Williams left Johnson lying in the street. Johnson was transported to the hospital where he received stitches but did not require surgery.

[¶6] Shortly after the shooting, law enforcement officers located Williams at a neighborhood bar where they arrested him and seized his vehicle. When law enforcement officers searched Williams's vehicle, they found a .40-caliber pistol with five rounds of ammunition in the magazine and one in the chamber. Law enforcement officers found a spent shell casing near where Johnson was shot that was the same caliber, color, and brand of casing on the ammunition in the pistol.

[¶7] On March 11, 2021, the State charged Williams with four counts: (1) attempted murder, a Level 1 felony; (2) aggravated battery, a Level 3 felony; (3) pointing a firearm, a Level 6 felony; and (4) possession of methamphetamine, a Level 6 felony. The State dismissed the possession charge before trial. Lori James was initially appointed to represent Williams, but she withdrew from the case on December 9, 2021. Robert Williams represented Williams after James, but he withdrew from the case on October 28, 2022. Starting on November 16, 2022, Timothy Broden began representing Williams and continued to do so through trial and sentencing. On January 1, 2023, Williams waived his right to a jury trial, and on March 2, 2023, the trial court conducted a bench trial. On March 10, 2023, the trial court found Williams guilty of and entered judgment of conviction on attempted murder, a Level 1 felony; aggravated battery, a Level 3 felony; and pointing a firearm, a Level 6 felony. At sentencing, the trial court vacated the latter two convictions and sentenced Williams on only the attempted murder conviction.

[¶8] On April 6, 2023, four days prior to the sentencing hearing, Williams filed with the trial court a psychological evaluation report dated May 28, 2021, which concluded that Williams was not competent to stand trial (the "2021 Competency Report"). The 2021 Competency Report was completed at the request of James, Williams's public defender for most of 2021. Several months after the Competency Report was completed, James withdrew from the case. Broden, Williams's public defender at trial, did not know about the 2021 Competency Report until after the trial and verdict. Notably, Broden did not make or file a motion requesting a competency evaluation of Williams; instead, Broden argued at the sentencing hearing that the trial court should consider as a mitigating factor Williams's mental health and intellectual abilities as described in the 2021 Competency Report.

[¶9] The trial court determined there were two mitigating factors: (1) Williams has family support, and (2) Williams has mental health issues. The trial court also determined there were four aggravating factors:

1. Williams's self-reported possession of a handgun as a juvenile;

2. Williams's adult criminal history, including

a. felony convictions for shooting at a public transit employee; aggravated unlawful use of a weapon; and making terroristic threats,

b. misdemeanor convictions for domestic assault; giving a false name, date of birth, or identification to a peace officer; consuming alcohol under 21 years of age; and driving without a license,

c. three petitions to revoke probation, two of which were found to be true,

d. an outstanding warrant in a pending case from another state, and

e. a history of failing to appear; 3. Williams's history of substance use; and

4. Williams's previous failed attempts at rehabilitation.

Appellant's App. Vol. II at 180-81. The trial court sentenced Williams to a total of 35 years for the attempted murder of Johnson, with 30 years executed at the DOC and 5 years suspended to supervised probation. Williams now appeals his conviction and sentence.^[4]

Discussion and Decision

1. The Evidence Was Sufficient to Support Williams's Attempted Murder Conviction

[¶10] Williams argues that the evidence presented at trial was insufficient to support his conviction for attempted murder. "Sufficiency-of-the-evidence arguments trigger a deferential standard of appellate review, in which we 'neither reweigh the evidence nor judge witness credibility, instead reserving those matters to the province of the [factfinder].'" Owen v. State, 210 N.E.3d 256, 264 (Ind. 2023) (quoting Brantley v. State, 91 N.E.3d 566, 570 (Ind. 2018)), reh'g denied (Aug. 17, 2023). In our review, "we consider only 'the probative evidence and reasonable inferences supporting the verdict.'" Id. (quoting Matheney v. State, 583 N.E.2d 1202, 1208 (Ind. 1992)).

We will reverse a guilty verdict only when no reasonable trier of fact "could find the elements of the crime proven beyond a reasonable doubt." Lock v. State, 971 N.E.2d 71, 74 (Ind. 2012) (quoting Drane v. State, 867 N.E.2d 144, 146 (Ind. 2007)).

[¶11] In order to convict Williams of attempted murder, the State had to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Williams, acting with the specific intent to kill, engaged in conduct that constituted a substantial step toward the commission of murder. See I.C. §§ 35-42-1-1(1), 35-41-5-1(a); Rosales v. State, 23 N.E.3d 8, 12 (Ind. 2015) (quoting Hopkins v. State, 759 N.E.2d 633, 637 (Ind. 2001)). Notably, the Indiana Supreme Court has "singled out attempted murder for special treatment" by requiring the State to show specific intent because of "the stringent penalties for attempted murder and the ambiguity often involved in its proof." Rosales, 23 N.E.3d at 12 (quoting Hopkins, 759 N.E.2d at 637).

[¶12] Williams argues only that there was insufficient evidence to prove that he had specific intent to kill Johnson. "Intent to kill may be inferred from the nature of the attack and the circumstances surrounding the crime." Kiefer v. State, 761 N.E.2d 802, 805 (Ind. 2002) (citing Nunn v. State, 601 N.E.2d 334 (Ind. 1992)). Additionally, "intent to kill may be inferred from the deliberate use of a deadly weapon in a manner likely to cause death or serious injury," Henley v. State, 881 N.E.2d 639, 652 (Ind. 2008) (citing Wilson v. State, 697 N.E.2d 466, 476 (Ind. 1998)), including when a defendant "fir[es] a gun in the direction of an individual," id. (citing Jones v. State, 536 N.E.2d 267, 270 (Ind. 1989)).

[¶13] The probative evidence and reasonable inferences supporting the verdict reveal that Williams provided a ride to Johnson in exchange for five dollars, Williams later demanded money from Johnson, Williams tried to get Johnson alone in an alley when Johnson refused Williams's demand, Williams pulled out a gun when Johnson continued to refuse Williams's demand, Williams shot...