Jennings v. State
| Decision Date | 27 April 2023 |
| Docket Number | 22A-CR-2550 |
| Parties | Steven Michael Jennings, Appellant-Defendant, v. State of Indiana, Appellee-Plaintiff |
| Court | Indiana Appellate Court |
1
Steven Michael Jennings, Appellant-Defendant,
v.
State of Indiana, Appellee-Plaintiff
No. 22A-CR-2550
Court of Appeals of Indiana
April 27, 2023
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 Appellate Rule 65(D), this Memorandum Decision is not binding precedent for any court and may be cited only for persuasive value or to establish res judicata, collateral estoppel, or law of the case.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. 79D01-2012-F2-73
ATTORNEY FOR APPELLANT Carlos I. Carrillo Carrillo Law LLC Greenwood, Indiana
ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE Theodore E. Rokita Attorney General of Indiana Ellen H. Meilaender Supervising Deputy Attorney General Indianapolis, Indiana
Judges May and Bradford concur.
MEMORANDUM DECISION
Mathias, Judge
[¶1] Steven Michael Jennings appeals his convictions for Level 4 felony unlawful possession of a firearm by a serious violent felon; Level 5 felony dealing in a substance represented to be a controlled substance; and Level 6 felony possession of a controlled substance. Jennings also appeals his adjudication as a habitual offender and his sentence. Jennings raises five issues for our review, which we reorder and restate as follows:
1. Whether the trial court abused its discretion when it admitted evidence seized from Jennings's apartment pursuant to a search warrant
2. Whether the State presented sufficient evidence to support Jennings's convictions and habitual offender adjudication
3. Whether Jennings's convictions and adjudication violate Indiana's prohibition against double jeopardy
4. Whether the trial court improperly applied double enhancements to Jennings's sentence.
5. Whether Jennings's sentence is inappropriate in light of the nature of the offenses and his character.
[¶2] We affirm.
Facts and Procedural History
[¶3] On August 6, 2020, Lafayette Police Department Sergeant Shawn Verma and other officers responded to a tip of illegal drug use. At the location identified in that tip, the officers encountered two subjects with spice, or synthetic
marijuana. One of the subjects informed Sergeant Verma that he had purchased the spice from Steven Jennings, and, while the subject did not know Jennings's exact address, he did describe the building in which Jennings lived and its location. Sergeant Verma recognized those descriptions as identifying a building at 308 Perrin Avenue in Lafayette.
[¶4] In response to that information, Sergeant Verma and Lafayette Police Department Officer Josh Brainard immediately went to 308 Perrin Avenue. That building was a two-story building with four apartments inside, two on each floor, and an entryway into a common area. The officers entered into the common area, and they "immediately" recognized a strong "odor of spice" throughout the area. Tr. Vol. 2, p. 18, 42. The officers recognized the spice smell from their training and experience because "[t]he smell is very distinct.... [I]t's a very pungent, very chemical odor." Id. at 148.
[¶5] Because the odor in the common area was so strong, the officers could not immediately pinpoint from which apartment the smell emanated. Officer Brainard returned to his vehicle while Sergeant Verma stayed and approached each apartment door. Sergeant Verma "immediately" ruled out apartment one because he "couldn't smell anything coming from the door there." Id. at 18. He then "went to the apartment straight across," apartment two, where the smell was substantially stronger. Id. But that tenant opened the apartment door, and Sergeant Verma was able to verify that the smell "wasn't coming from there." Id. at 19.
[¶6] Apartment two was directly below apartment three, and because "the odor was so strong" on that side of the building, Sergeant Verma proceeded up the stairs, where "the odor got stronger." Id. As he approached the door to apartment three, he was "[one] hundred percent" sure the odor "was coming from that apartment." Id. Further, the tenant in apartment four, above apartment one and across from apartment three, had a delivery being made around that same time. That tenant opened her door for the delivery, and Sergeant Verma "did not get any odor coming from that apartment." Id. at 20. Meanwhile, officers searched for Jennings in a State database, and they learned that Jennings lived in apartment three. Jennings's name was also the only name on the mailbox for apartment three. Id. at 159.
[¶7] Sergeant Verma reported his observations to Officer Brainard, who applied for a search warrant for apartment three. Omitting formal elements, Officer Brainard's probable cause affidavit stated:
On August [¶6], 2020[,] Sgt. Verma and [I] were conducting a follow up investigation at 308-3 Perrin Avenue[] regarding information that the tenant, Steven Jennings, was dealing synthetic drugs, commonly known as spice. Sgt. Verma and [I] went to 308-3 Perrin Avenue to make contact with the resident and entered the common door for the apartment house. While [I] was at the bottom of the steps which led up to Apt. 3, [I] could detect an odor which [I] recognized as spice. Sgt. Verma went upstairs to the door for Apt. 3 and advised [me] that he could smell the strong odor of spice coming from inside Apartment 3. Both Sgt. Verma and [I] are familiar with the odor of spice from [our] training and experience as law enforcement officers and
have encountered this odor numerous times during the course of [our] duties as law enforcement officers.
Instead of trying to make contact with anyone in said apartment, Sgt. Verma and [I] decided to maintain surveillance of this location and request a search warrant. [I] request[] a search warrant be issued for 308-3 Perrin Avenue, which is in a two-story white apartment house with a brown front common door, with stairs inside the common door which lead up to Apt. 3, which has the number "3" affixed to the door for that unit, to search for any synthetic drugs, scales, paraphernalia, packaging materials, and for any bills, notes, receipts, ledgers, papers, items of personal property[,] or other evidence which would be evidence of possessing, using or trafficking in controlled substances, or which would help identify anyone having any possessory interest in any items of contraband which may be found in said apartment or involved in said activity.
Ex. Vol. 5, p. 9.
[¶8] The trial court granted the search warrant, and officers immediately executed it. The apartment was a one-bedroom apartment, and no one was inside it when the officers forced entry to execute the warrant. By the closet in the bedroom, the officers located a backpack. From inside the backpack, they seized two sandwich baggies containing nearly forty-five grams of spice, a handgun with ammunition, and two digital scales. Also inside the backpack was medical paperwork made out to Jennings. From elsewhere in the apartment, officers seized an ecstasy pill and several "roaches" of spice. Tr. Vol. 2, p. 154.
[¶9] Later that day, Jennings returned to his apartment and found "his door was broken down." Id. at 159. He called the police, and officers arrived, explained
the search, and advised him of his Miranda rights. Jennings then informed the officers that he was "buying and reselling the spice . . . for a profit." Id. at 163.
[¶10] The State charged Jennings with numerous offenses as well as alleging Jennings to be a habitual offender. Among those charges, the State alleged that Jennings had committed Level 4 felony unlawful possession of a firearm by a serious violent felon, in which count the State alleged that Jennings had a previous conviction in 2010 of a Class C felony ("the 2010 conviction"). The State also alleged that Jennings had committed dealing in a substance represented to be a controlled substance, which the State alleged as a Level 5 felony based on the 2010 conviction. And, while the State's information on the habitual offender allegation identified the 2010 conviction, it also identified three other qualifying prior convictions.
[¶11] Jennings moved to suppress the evidence seized from his apartment on the ground that the probable cause affidavit was insufficient. The trial court denied Jennings's motion. At his ensuing jury trial, the court then admitted that evidence over Jennings's objection.
[¶12] The jury found Jennings guilty as charged. Jennings then waived his right to a jury trial for the bifurcated habitual offender phase, after which the court found him to be a habitual offender. Following a sentencing hearing, the trial court entered judgment of conviction against Jennings for Level 4 felony unlawful possession of a handgun by a serious violent felon; Level 5 felony dealing in a substance represented to be a controlled substance; Level 6 felony possession of
a controlled substance; and adjudicated Jennings to be a habitual offender. The court then sentenced Jennings to six years on the Level 4 felony conviction, to which the court attached an additional six-year term for the habitual offender allegation. The court also ordered Jennings to serve concurrent terms of four years and two years on the Level 5 and Level 6 felony convictions, respectively, for an aggregate term of twelve years in the Department of Correction. This appeal ensued.
Issue One: Admission of Evidence
[¶13] We first address Jennings's argument that the trial court abused its discretion when it admitted the evidence seized from his apartment under the search warrant. As our Supreme Court has stated:
we consider this appeal a request to review the trial court's decision to admit evidence. Carpenter v. State, 18 N.E.3d 998, 1001 (Ind. 2014) (citing Guilmette v. State, 14 N.E.3d 38, 40 (Ind. 2014)). The trial court has broad discretion to rule on the admissibility of evidence. Guilmette, 14 N.E.3d at 40. Rulings on...
To continue reading
Request your trial