Williams v. State, Court of Appeals Case No. 19A-CR-115

138 N.E.3d 987 (Table)

Martell WILLIAMS, Appellant-Defendant,

v.STATE of Indiana, Appellee-Plaintiff.

Court of Appeals Case No. 19A-CR-115

Court of Appeals of Indiana.

Filed November 25, 2019

Attorney for Appellant: Leanna K. Weissmann, Lawrenceburg, Indiana

Attorneys for Appellee: Curtis T. Hill, Jr., Attorney General of Indiana, J.T. Whitehead, Deputy Attorney General, Indianapolis, Indiana

MEMORANDUM DECISION

Bailey, Judge.

Case Summary

[1] Martell Williams ("Williams") appeals his convictions for three counts of Murder, felonies,¹ and one count of Robbery, as a Level 5 felony.² We affirm.

Issues

[2] Williams presents eight issues for review:

I. Whether he is entitled to discharge under Indiana Criminal Rule 4 ;

II. Whether sufficient evidence supports his convictions;

III. Whether the trial court abused its discretion in evidentiary rulings;

IV. Whether the trial court became an advocate for the State to achieve admission of a video;

V. Whether the trial court's imposition of consecutive sentences is an abuse of discretion;

VI. Whether his aggregate sentence is inappropriate pursuant to Indiana Appellate Rule 7(B) ;

VII. Whether his Robbery conviction must be vacated under the continuous crime doctrine; and

VIII. Whether he, as an indigent defendant, is entitled to a transcript at public expense.

Facts and Procedural History

[3] In 2017, Sha-Lynn Poindexter ("Poindexter"), Jordan Wright ("Wright"), Justin Crowder ("Crowder"), and Dominique Miller ("Miller") shared an apartment in Indianapolis. Crowder's girlfriend, Zoe Radford ("Radford") was a frequent visitor.

[4] Crowder supplemented his income by selling marijuana. One of his regular customers was a resident of the same complex, Sean Jones ("Jones"). Jones became aware that Crowder kept a safe and a gun in his apartment, and Jones suspected that the safe contained cash and marijuana. Jones and his friend, Stanley Williams ("Stanley"), began to discuss robbing Crowder.

[5] On July 16, 2017, Jones contacted Devante Gilbert ("Gilbert") to convey that he "wanted to rob someone" and needed a driver. (Tr. Vol. IV, pg. 117.) Gilbert agreed to be the driver. Jones also texted Stanley that he had been "casing [Crowder's apartment] all day" and needed "help [to] get some guns for this robbery." (Tr. Vol. V, pg. 209.) Stanley then called Williams, and Williams called Troy Ward ("Ward"). Gilbert drove to pick up each of the others; when Williams and Ward approached the vehicle, they were carrying backpacks with weapons inside.

[6] Gilbert drove back to Somerset Bay Apartments, where he had first picked up Jones, and backed into a parking space near Crowder's apartment. Gilbert and Stanley remained in the vehicle. Jones used a code to access Crowder's apartment building³ and walked up the stairs, with Williams and Ward crouching beside him. Jones knocked on the door and, when it was opened, the trio pushed their way inside.

[7] In a bedroom, Poindexter heard gunshots. Wright armed himself with a sword and told Poindexter to hide; he then left the room. Poindexter hid between two dog crates, emerging when Radford came running into the room saying that "everyone was shot." (Tr. Vol. II, pg. 161.) In the dining room and living room, Miller, Wright, and Crowder lay dead from gunshots wounds to the head.

[8] Jones, Williams, and Ward returned to Gilbert's vehicle. Jones had a wad of cash and an assault rifle, which he placed in the trunk. Ward was carrying a safe. Gilbert drove to a wooded area and everyone exited the vehicle with a plan to open the safe. However, Gilbert and Jones soon left to seek assistance because Jones had been shot and could not staunch the bleeding. Ward fired shots at the safe and it eventually opened. It was empty. The empty-handed trio walked to a nearby Target store and got rides to home and work.

[9] In the ensuing police investigation, Radford identified Jones as one of the intruders. Jones, who had been shot and was receiving treatment at Methodist Hospital in Indianapolis, was arrested the following day. He confessed to his involvement in the murders and robbery, and implicated Williams, Ward, Gilbert, and Stanley. Ultimately, Gilbert, Stanley, and Jones each entered a plea bargain with the State, agreeing to plead guilty to a felony other than Murder and provide testimony in the prosecution of Williams and Ward.

[10] Williams and Ward were tried before a jury on October 9 through October 15, 2018, on charges of Murder, Robbery, and Carrying a Handgun without a License. The jury convicted Williams as charged, but to avoid double jeopardy concerns, the trial court did not enter a judgment of conviction upon the latter charge and entered the Robbery conviction as a Level 5 felony. Upon his conviction for three counts of Murder, Williams received consecutive sentences of fifty-five, forty-five, and fifty-five years. Upon his conviction for Robbery, Williams received a concurrent sentence of five years, thus providing for an aggregate sentence of 145 years. He now appeals.

Discussion and Decision

Motion for Discharge – Criminal Rule 4

[11] Williams's trial was initially set for June 25, 2018. At a June 19, 2018 pretrial conference, the State and defense counsel made a joint motion to continue the trial. The trial was set for August 20, 2018. At the same pretrial conference, after a continuance was requested but the trial date had not been set, Williams requested a speedy trial. The trial court acknowledged that both defendants had requested an early trial date pursuant to Criminal Rule 4(B)(1) (requiring the trial of an incarcerated defendant within seventy days) and noted "70th day should be the 28th of August." (Tr. Vol. II, pg. 12.)

[12] At a July 31, 2018 pretrial conference, the August trial setting was confirmed. At a pretrial conference on August 17, 2018, the State moved for a continuance to permit the Marion County Cyber Crimes Unit to conduct additional investigation related to cell phone contact between some of the alleged co-conspirators.

[13] The trial court granted the State's motion for a continuance despite Williams's assertion of his speedy trial rights, finding that delay attributable to the jointly requested continuance was chargeable to Williams. The trial court reasoned that a defendant "cannot ask for a continuance and ask for a speedy trial simultaneously" and the seventy-day computation as to Williams "does not go to the day the request is made," June 19, 2018, but rather began on the agreed-upon trial date of August 20, 2018. (Tr. Vol. II, pg. 47.) After providing its reasoning, the trial court reset the trial for October 9, 2018.

[14] An accused's right to a speedy trial is guaranteed by Article 1, Section 12 of the Indiana Constitution and by the Sixth Amendment to the United States Constitution. Leek v. State , 878 N.E.2d 276, 277 (Ind. Ct. App. 2007). Criminal Rule 4 was adopted to implement this speedy trial right. Id. Williams unsuccessfully moved for discharge pursuant to Criminal Rule 4(B)(1), which provides in pertinent part:

If any defendant held in jail on an indictment or an affidavit shall move for an early trial, he shall be discharged if not brought to trial within seventy (70) calendar days from the date of such motion, except where a continuance within said period is had on his motion, or the delay is otherwise caused by his act, or where there was not sufficient time to try him during such seventy (70) calendar days because of the congestion of the court calendar.

Williams claims that his June 19, 2018 motion started the seventy-day clock, and he did not thereafter cause any delay but remained ready for the August trial setting; thus, the October trial setting violated his speedy trial rights and he is entitled to discharge.

[15] A trial court's decision denying a motion for discharge under Criminal Rule 4 is reviewed for clear error, after according the trial court's findings reasonable deference. Austin v. State , 997 N.E.2d 1027, 1040 (Ind. 2013). Clear error is that which leaves us with a definite and firm conviction that a mistake has been made. Id. Where the issue is a question of law applied to undisputed facts, the review is de novo. Id. at 1039. Here, the parties do not dispute the facts. Williams requested a continuance, the grant of which reset his trial to August 20, 2018. The same day, he requested a speedy trial.

[16] Criminal Rule 4(F) provides for an extension of time as follows:

When a continuance is had on motion of the defendant, or delay in trial is caused by his act, any time limitation contained in this rule shall be extended by the amount of the resulting period of such delay caused thereby.

[17] Williams focuses solely upon the timing of his motion for a speedy trial. In the specific sequence of events, Williams requested a continuance before the trial date was set, and before making his motion for a speedy trial. But Criminal Rule 4 "makes no distinction regarding when the trial date is set" and "delays caused by action taken by the defendant are chargeable to the defendant regardless of whether a trial date has been set." Cook v. State , 810 N.E.2d 1064, 1067 (Ind. 2004). And Criminal Rule 4(B)(1) contemplates a "continuance within said period" that is "had on [defendant's] motion" and does not specify that the motion must be made within the seventy-day period.

[18] The salient fact here is that Williams initiated the delay that took place after his motion. Williams cannot receive a continuance without accountability. See Brown v. State , 725 N.E.2d 823, 825 (Ind. 2000) ("The objective of the rule is to move cases along and to provide the defendant with a timely trial, not to create a mechanism to avoid trial.") The delay up until August 20, 2018 was chargeable to Williams and the seventieth day thereafter was October 29, 2018. Williams was tried within this period; therefore, he is not entitled to discharge.

Sufficiency of the Evidence

[19] To convict Williams of murder, as charged, the State was required...