Campbell v. State
| Decision Date | 21 December 2020 |
| Docket Number | Court of Appeals Case No. 19A-CR-2414 |
| Citation | 161 N.E.3d 371 |
| Parties | Ike CAMPBELL, Appellant-Defendant, v. STATE of Indiana, Appellee-Plaintiff |
| Court | Indiana Appellate Court |
Case Summary and Issues
[1] Following a jury trial, Ike Campbell was convicted of, among other crimes, unlawful possession of a firearm by a serious violent felon, a Level 4 felony, and found to be an habitual offender. The trial court sentenced Campbell to an aggregate sentence of thirty-three years in the Indiana Department of Correction ("DOC"). Campbell appeals and raises two issues for our review: (1) whether the trial court abused its discretion by allowing the State to file a belated habitual offender enhancement; and (2) whether the evidence is sufficient to support Campbell's unlawful possession of a firearm by a serious violent felon conviction. Concluding the trial court abused its discretion by allowing the State to file the belated enhancement without good cause and the evidence is sufficient to support Campbell's conviction, we affirm in part, and reverse and remand in part.
Facts and Procedural History
[2] On March 23, 2018, Officer Brandon Brown of the Indianapolis Metropolitan Police Department was patrolling a gas station near 38th Street and Sherman Street in Indianapolis. Officer Brown observed a gold Caravan in the gas station's parking lot with an African American male wearing a knit hat and sitting in the driver's seat. The driver was later identified as Campbell. Officer Brown ran the vehicle's license plate number and learned the vehicle had been reported stolen and called for backup units.
[3] As Officer Brown waited for backup, the van pulled away from the gas station. Officer Brown followed the van and activated his lights and sirens to initiate a traffic stop but the van did not stop. Instead, the van "began to pick up dust and accelerate[.]" Transcript, Volume II at 94. With the lights and sirens still activated, Officer Brown followed the van to an apartment complex and observed Campbell get out of the van and take off running with the van still in motion. As Campbell fled, the van rolled forward and struck him, causing him to fall and lose his shoes. The van continued to roll until it crashed into two parked vehicles.
[4] Officer Brown pursued Campbell on foot through the apartment complex. During the pursuit, Officer Brown commanded Campbell to stop. At some point during the chase, Campbell reached a steep hill and began to tumble down. As he tumbled, Officer Brown saw a "shiny object" fall from Campbell's person. Id. at 106. When Campbell reached the bottom of the hill, he was apprehended. Approximately ten to fifteen feet from where Campbell had been apprehended, officers located a hat with a revolver right next to it. Campbell admitted the hat belonged to him but told officers it was not his gun. The gun was later processed for DNA and fingerprints; however, no fingerprints were found, and DNA results were inconclusive. See id. at 156; Table of Exhibits, Volume I at 36.
[5] On March 27, the State charged Campbell with the following: Count I, unlawful possession of a firearm by a serious violent felon, a Level 4 felony; Count II, auto theft, a Level 6 felony; Count III, resisting law enforcement, a Level 6 felony; Count IV, resisting law enforcement by flight, a Class A misdemeanor; Count V, possession of marijuana, a Class B misdemeanor1 ; and Counts VI and VII, leaving the scene of an accident, both Class B misdemeanors. The State subsequently amended the charging information to add Count VIII, resisting law enforcement by force, a Class A misdemeanor.
[6] On May 22, the State filed its Notice of Intent to File Habitual Offender Enhancement notifying Campbell that it Appellant's Appendix, Volume II at 58. The next day, the State presented Campbell with a plea offer the terms of which are unknown.2
[7] Months later, on August 1, the State filed its Notice of Supplemental Discovery Compliance with certified copies of Campbell's prior convictions. Around August 14, the State asked if Campbell was interested in a plea agreement, and Campbell stated he would only consider a plea to resisting law enforcement by flight and possession of marijuana. The State declined to make such an offer. A jury trial was scheduled for October 25.
[8] On October 15, the trial was rescheduled for January 24, 2019 to allow the State time to take depositions of Campbell's witnesses. At a pre-trial conference on January 15, the parties confirmed the jury trial but two days later, the State e-mailed defense counsel stating that it was willing to honor the plea deal it had offered Campbell in May 2018. After conferring with Campbell, defense counsel informed the State that Campbell was still only willing to plead guilty to resisting law enforcement by flight and possession of marijuana. According to defense counsel, Id. at 131. Several days later, the State filed a motion to continue the trial due to witness issues. The trial was rescheduled for February 7.
[9] On February 1, the prosecuting attorney e-mailed defense counsel, asking whether Campbell was interested in making a counteroffer. On February 5, after speaking with Campbell, defense counsel informed the State that "nothing has changed" and Campbell would only plead guilty to resisting law enforcement and possession of marijuana. Id. At 4:31 p.m. that day, the State filed a motion to amend the charging information by adding the habitual offender enhancement. In support of its motion, the State offered the following grounds: (1) it filed its notice of intent to add the habitual offender sentencing enhancement on May 22, 2018; and (2) Campbell "had notice of the filing and the discovery documents and there is no substantial prejudice." Id. at 123.
[10] On February 6, the day before trial, the trial court granted the State's motion. Around 10:00 p.m. that night, Campbell filed his objection to the State's motion arguing that the State "had, at minimum, from August 14, 2018 until December 25, 2018" to file the enhancement within the statutory period provided by Indiana Code section 35-34-1-5(e). Id. at 132. But, Campbell argued, the State failed to file within that period or show good cause for the late filing. As a result, he claimed there was actual prejudice to him, namely that the State's after hours filing on February 5 was "in essence [filed] one day prior to trial [and w]hile the State is preparing their case for jury trial, ounsel is required to spend hours researching, writing and filing this Objection. him. Id. at 133.
[11] The following morning, the parties appeared for trial. Campbell raised his objection to the filing of the habitual offender enhancement. He argued that the State failed to show good cause for the late filing. In filing the late motion, the State relied on ongoing plea negotiations, but Campbell claimed that "there have not been plea negotiations in this case since at least May." Supplemental Transcript of Evidence, Volume II at 38. When trial was set for January 24, the State represented that it was getting ready to file the habitual offender count but failed to. And at the pre-trial hearing, when the parties confirmed the January 24 jury trial, the State again indicated it was going to file but did not. Campbell argued that the State strategically waited until the day before trial to file the motion, when defense counsel was "doing ... the bulk of our ... jury preparation." Id. at 39.
[12] The State responded that the timing of the filing was not a tactic but instead, attributable to ongoing plea negotiations and staff changes in the office. It further argued that, on May 22, 2018, Campbell was given notice of its intent to file the habitual offender enhancement in the event plea negotiations failed and on August 1, Campbell received certified copies of his prior convictions via discovery. The State claimed that "multiple prosecutor's [sic] have been reaching out to [Campbell] to see if we could find a plea agreement that is something that we can both agree to on a serious violent felon charge without filing the habitual." Id. at 40. "We waited until the last minute to give the defendant the opportunity to get a lower plea agreement before a six (6) to twenty (20) year sentence enhancement was applied and now we are filing it." Id. The trial court overruled Campbell's objection. Campbell moved for a continuance, which the trial court ultimately granted.
[13] Campbell's jury trial was held on June 27. In the first phase of trial, the jury found Campbell guilty of all counts. In the second phase, the jury found Campbell to be a serious violent felon. And in the final phase, the jury found Campbell to be an habitual offender. At sentencing, the trial court vacated Count IV, resisting law enforcement by flight, and Count VII, leaving the scene of an accident. The trial court sentenced Campbell to an aggregate sentence of thirty-three years in the DOC.3 Campbell now appeals. Additional facts will be supplied as necessary.
Discussion and Decision
[14] Campbell argues that the trial court abused its discretion by allowing "the belated filing of an habitual offender enhancement one business day before trial without requiring a showing or making any finding of good cause for the tardiness." Brief of Appellant at 14. We agree.
[15] The legislature has given the trial court discretion to allow or disallow a belated habitual offender charge upon a showing of good cause....
To continue reading
Request your trial