Hines v. State, No. 52A05–1312–CR–594.

Docket NºNo. 52A05–1312–CR–594.
Citation14 N.E.3d 133
Case DateJune 17, 2014
CourtCourt of Appeals of Indiana

14 N.E.3d 133 (Table)

Cornelius HINES, Appellant–Defendant
v.
STATE of Indiana, Appellee–Plaintiff.

No. 52A05–1312–CR–594.

Court of Appeals of Indiana.

June 17, 2014.


Stacy R. Uliana, Bargersville, IN, Attorney for Appellant.

Gregory F. Zoeller, Attorney General of Indiana, Joseph Y. Ho, Deputy Attorney General, Indianapolis, IN, Attorneys for Appellee.

MEMORANDUM DECISION—NOT FOR PUBLICATION

FRIEDLANDER, Judge.

Following a jury trial, Cornelius Hines was convicted of Count 1, Criminal Confinement1 as a class C felony, and Count 2, Battery2 as a class D felony. Hines now appeals, presenting two issues for our review:

1. Do Hines's convictions for battery and criminal confinement violate Indiana's double-jeopardy protections?

2. Is the sentence imposed inappropriate?

We affirm.

On August 28, 2012, while incarcerated at the Miami Correctional Facility, Hines attacked Regina Bougher, a correctional officer at the facility. Hines charged at Officer Bougher with his head and shoulder, striking her in the ribs. This action caused bruising and pain in Officer Bougher's ribs. Hines then restrained Officer Bougher by pinning her right arm to the wall, grabbing her face with his other hand, and using the weight of his body to immobilize her. The attack was subsequently broken up when Officer Bougher was able to radio for help. Following the incident, Officer Bougher was medically unable to return to work for a number of months.

On September 26, 2012, the State charged Hines with criminal confinement and battery. Following a jury trial, Hines was found guilty as charged. The trial court sentenced him to concurrent terms of eight years on the confinement conviction and three years on the battery conviction. Hines now appeals.

1.

Hines argues that his convictions for criminal confinement and battery violate the Indiana double jeopardy clause. Specifically, Hines argues that the convictions violate the actual-evidence test of the double jeopardy clause.

Double-jeopardy claims arising under the Indiana Constitution are evaluated utilizing a two-part test, pursuant to which multiple offenses are the same offense in violation of article 1, section 14, “if, with respect to either the statutory elements of the challenged crimes or the actual evidence used to convict, the essential elements of one challenged offense also establish the essential elements of another challenged offense.” Richardson v. State, 717 N.E.2d 32, 49 (Ind.1999). To prevail under the actual-evidence test, Hines must demonstrate that there is a reasonable possibility that the evidentiary facts used by the jury to establish the essential elements of one of his offenses may also have been used to establish all the essential elements of the other. See Davis v. State, 770 N.E.2d 319 (Ind.2002). In applying the actual-evidence test, we must ‘ “identify the essential elements of each of the challenged crimes and ... evaluate the evidence from the jury's perspective.”Lee v. State, 892 N.E.2d 1231, 1234 (Ind.2008) (quoting Spivey v. State, 761 N.E.2d 831, 832 (Ind.2002) ). The “reasonable possibility” standard “requires substantially more than a logical possibility” and “turns on a practical assessment of whether the jury may have latched on to exactly the same facts for both convictions.” Id. at 1236. “In determining what facts were used to support each conviction, we will consider the evidence, charging information, final jury instructions, and arguments of counsel.” Cole v. State, 967 N.E.2d 1044, 1050–1051 (Ind.Ct.App.2012).

Here, the evidentiary facts used to establish the confinement conviction were separate and distinct from those used to establish the battery conviction. To establish the battery conviction, the State presented evidence that Hines lunged toward Officer Bougher, striking her in the ribs with his head and shoulder. Officer Bougher experienced pain and bruising in her ribs. To establish the criminal-confinement conviction, the State presented evidence that Hines pinned Officer Bougher against the wall with the use of his arms and body. Officer Bougher testified in detail about how Hines pinned her right arm to the wall and she was not able to move. She received bruising on her right arm from the confinement.

Moreover, in the State's opening statement, the State described the incident saying that Hines

[t]hen lunges at Officer Bougher putting his shoulder and head into her ribcage causing pain. He continues on with his violent act and pins her up against a concrete wall where he restrains her right arm, secures her left arm and puts another hand over her face where she cannot move and then strikes her head at least two times against a concrete wall.

Transcript at 125. In its closing argument, the State again made a distinction in the evidence, noting...

To continue reading

Request your trial
1 practice notes
  • Hines v. State, No. 52S05–1408–CR–563.
    • United States
    • Indiana Supreme Court of Indiana
    • 19 May 2015
    ...eight years for Criminal Confinement and three years for Battery. The Court of Appeals affirmed. Hines v. State, No. 52A05–1312–CR–594, 14 N.E.3d 133 (Ind.Ct.App. June 17, 2014) (table).Generally averring violation of double jeopardy under the Indiana Constitution and common law, the defend......
1 cases
  • Hines v. State, No. 52S05–1408–CR–563.
    • United States
    • Indiana Supreme Court of Indiana
    • 19 May 2015
    ...eight years for Criminal Confinement and three years for Battery. The Court of Appeals affirmed. Hines v. State, No. 52A05–1312–CR–594, 14 N.E.3d 133 (Ind.Ct.App. June 17, 2014) (table).Generally averring violation of double jeopardy under the Indiana Constitution and common law, the defend......

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT