Burton v. State

• Decision Date: 15 August 1988
• Docket Number: No. 73S00-8612-CR-01038,73S00-8612-CR-01038
• Parties: Irvin W. BURTON and Kenneth G. Hale, Appellants (Defendants below), v. STATE of Indiana, Appellee (Plaintiff below).
• Court: Indiana Supreme Court

Page 1163

526 N.E.2d 1163

Irvin W. BURTON and Kenneth G. Hale, Appellants (Defendants below), v. STATE of Indiana, Appellee (Plaintiff below).

No. 73S00-8612-CR-01038.

Supreme Court of Indiana.

Aug. 15, 1988.

Jerry J. Lux, Robison, Deprez, Lux & Schooley, P.A., Shelbyville, for appellants.

Linley E. Pearson, Atty. Gen., Michael Gene Worden, Deputy Atty. Gen., Indianapolis, for appellee.

PIVARNIK, Justice.

Irvin W. Burton and Kenneth G. Hale were found guilty by a jury of count I, Burglary, a class B felony, and count II, Theft. They were also found to be habitual offenders. Each was sentenced to a term of ten (10) years for the burglary conviction, enhanced by thirty (30) years for the habitual offender finding, and further sentenced to two (2) years for the theft conviction, the sentences to be served concurrently. Burton and Hale directly appeal raising the following issues for our review:

1. adequacy of the jury instructions given at the habitual offender phase of trial;

2. whether Burton's conduct and the fact that the State referred to such conduct during final argument denied Hale a fair trial since Hale and Burton were jointly represented by counsel;

3. sufficiency of the evidence to sustain Hale's convictions;

4. sufficiency of the identification evidence to sustain the finding of habitual offender as to Burton.

The facts most favorable to the verdict below show that on the evening of February 4, 1986, Gary Larkey, and his wife and child, returned to their home in Shelby County, Indiana. As they approached their home they noticed the lights were on and a strange car was in the driveway near the back sidewalk with the engine running. Mr. Larkey was approaching the back door when a man ran out of the house and jumped the fence, dropping something as he jumped. Larkey later found that the item dropped was his wife's jewelry box. Mr. Larkey then shut off the car and took the keys, then, went inside the house, armed himself, and called the police.

Mr. Larkey later looked at the house and noticed the back door had been kicked in and that various articles had been moved from their positions inside the house and several articles were missing. Among the missing articles were money in a blue bank bag and jewelry.

Several police officers arrived on the scene and a search for fleeing suspects began, which included the use of canine units. Hale was found hitchhiking along a nearby interstate. Burton was detained when he tried to obtain a ride from the New Palestine Town Marshall. Both men had wet, muddy clothes when found. The police also made various photographs of shoeprints found at the scene of the burglary and where the dogs had tracked and found the bank bag. Comparison of some of these prints matched the shoes of Hale and Burton.

I

Both Burton and Hale challenge the jury instructions given at the habitual offender phase of trial. They claim the trial court erred by failing to instruct the jury they must find the prior unrelated felonies in the proper sequence. Burton also asserts the jury lacked adequate instruction and received insufficient evidence on the issue of identity to make its finding that he was a habitual offender.

Burton and Hale assert they were denied due process because the trial court failed to instruct the jury that they were required to find two prior unrelated felony convictions with commission sequential to conviction in order to find them guilty of the habitual offender count. This allegation of error is waived by both defendant's failure to object to the trial court's instructions. Baker v. State (1987), Ind., 505 N.E.2d 49, 51; Didio v. State (1984), Ind., 471 N.E.2d 1117, 1123. Also, their failure to tender any written instructions to cure the omission in the trial court's instructions constitutes a waiver of the issue. Lamotte v. State (1986), Ind., 495 N.E.2d 729, 732; Didio, 471 N.E.2d at 1123. While it is the duty of the trial court to properly instruct the jury on all matters of law which are necessary for their information in giving their verdict pursuant to Ind. Code Sec. 35-37-2-2, a defendant may not stand idly by while the court makes an error in instructing the jury and then claim, on appeal, that because of this error he is entitled to a new trial. Muse v. State (1981), Ind., 419 N.E.2d 1302, 1305.

Burton and Hale argue that an instruction containing an incorrect statement of the statutory law prejudicial to the defendant is fundamental error not waived by failure to tender instructions or to object specifically thereto. However, here the evidence presented to the jury on Hale's prior convictions shows that one of the crimes was committed on December 31, 1978, for which he was convicted on July 20, 1979, and sentenced on August 7, 1979. The other exhibit shows that crime was committed on December 28, 1980, which is subsequent to the conviction and sentence for the other felony. Regarding Burton, the evidence presented shows that one of the crimes was committed on April 21, 1978, for which he was convicted on April 17, 1979, and sentenced on May 7, 1979. Another exhibit shows that crime was committed on June 29, 1984, for which he was convicted and sentenced on July 3, 1985. Thus, the exhibits show the prior unrelated felonies of both defendants are in the required sequence. An error in the instruction of the jury does not require reversal if the conviction is clearly sustained by the evidence and the jury could not properly have found otherwise. Cheney v. State (1985), Ind., 486 N.E.2d 508, 513. Since the evidence clearly shows the proper sequence of conviction and sentence on the first prior felony before commission of the second prior felony, the jury could not have found that the sequence was other than proper for either defendant. Burton and Hale fail to demonstrate prejudice and thus present no reversible error on this issue.

Burton also asserts the jury lacked adequate instruction on the issue of identity to make its finding that he was a habitual offender. He claims no instruction was provided requiring the jury to find that the defendant Burton, just convicted of the principal charge, is the same person convicted on each of the prior unrelated felonies. However, the instructions given by the trial court sufficiently covered this issue. The court's final instruction No. 1 informed the jury that the information alleged that defendants were habitual offenders by charging "that the defendants have accumulated two (2) prior unrelated felony convictions each...." That instruction, in pertinent part, also informed the jury:

The State has the burden to prove to each juror beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendants have accumulated two (2) prior unrelated felony convictions each.

The court's instruction No. 2 informed the jury that to find Burton to be a habitual offender the State must have proved:

The defendant, Irvin W. Burton

1. On July 3, 1985, was convicted of the crime of theft for which he was sentenced on July 3, 1985.

2. On April 17, 1979, was convicted of the crime of battery with a deadly weapon for which he was sentenced on May 7, 1979.

and each of such criminal convictions were felony convictions.

Thus, the charge as a whole properly informed the jury on the identity issue. See Lucas v. State (1986), Ind., 499 N.E.2d 1090, 1098; Moore v. State (1985), Ind., 485 N.E.2d 62, 66; Wallace v. State (1985), Ind., 474 N.E.2d 1006, 1008.

II

Hale claims the conduct of Burton during trial and during the sentencing hearing created a substantial probability of prejudice against him. He asserts Burton's conduct and the fact that the State referred to such conduct during final argument denied him a fair trial since he and Burton were jointly represented by a single appointed attorney.

However, Hale did not move for a separate trial nor did he ever object to being tried with Burton. Thus, the issue is waived for failure to move for a separate trial. See Beal v. State (1983), Ind., 453 N.E.2d 190, 194; Dorton v. State (1981), Ind., 419 N.E.2d 1289, 1296. Furthermore, if this issue had not been waived, Hale would have to establish that failure to sever his case denied him a fair trial. Broadus v. State (1986), Ind., 487 N.E.2d 1298, 1302. In order to determine if actual prejudice occurred due to the joint trial, it is necessary to examine what actually happened at trial. Blacknell v. State (1987), Ind., 502 N.E.2d 899, 905; Broadus, 487 N.E.2d at 1302. Hale's claim that he was prejudiced by disruptive behavior by Burton is not supported by the record. Hale does not state what it is that Burton did or said during trial to allegedly prejudice Hale. Hale cites the prosecutor's reference to Burton in his closing argument. An examination of the prosecutor's argument does not reveal that Burton engaged in any behavior prejudicial to Hale. While Burton presented his own argument during the habitual offender proceeding, his argument was only on his own behalf and cannot be said to have caused actual prejudice to Hale. Hale has not presented evidence of Burton's behavior that shows actual prejudice to his case. Thus, Hale has failed to establish he was denied a fair trial.

Hale also claims his trial counsel was ineffective due to a conflict of interest in his joint representation of Hale and Burton. However, Hale has shown neither a conflict of interest, nor actual prejudice. Hale asserts that a conflict of interest developed due to Burton's behavior at trial and that the joint representation prevented counsel from objecting to or rectifying Burton's behavior. However, as previously noted, Hale has not provided any evidence of Burton's alleged misbehavior at trial. Thus, Hale has not shown that an actual conflict of interest existed. Also Burton's argument during the habitual offender proceeding does not evidence a conflict of interest because it did not implicate Hale and thus did not reflect adversely on Hale. Therefore, counsel's failure to object...