Lewis v. State
| Decision Date | 13 April 2023 |
| Docket Number | 22A-CR-2239 |
| Parties | Zachary L. Lewis, Appellant-Defendant, v. State of Indiana, Appellee-Plaintiff. |
| Court | Indiana Appellate Court |
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 Appellate Rule 65(D), this Memorandum Decision is not binding precedent for any court and may be cited only for persuasive value or to establish res judicata, collateral estoppel, or law of the case.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 Sullivan Superior Court The Honorable Hugh R. Hunt Judge Trial Court Cause No. 77D01-1911-F4-771
ATTORNEY FOR APPELLANT Spenser G. Benge The Law Office of Spenser G. Benge Anderson, Indiana.
ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE Theodore E. Rokita Attorney General of Indiana, Ian McLean Supervising Deputy Attorney General Indianapolis, Indiana.
[¶1] Following a jury trial, Zachary Lewis was convicted of possession of a deadly weapon by an inmate, a Level 4 felony, and sentenced to ten years in the Department of Correction ("DOC"). Lewis appeals and claims that the trial court: (1) abused its discretion by excluding the testimony of several defense witnesses; (2) erred by refusing to allow Lewis to proceed with "hybrid representation"; (3) abused its discretion by overlooking certain alleged mitigating factors; and (4) imposed a sentence that is constitutionally disproportionate to the offense. We find none of these claims to be meritorious and, accordingly, affirm Lewis's conviction and sentence.
[¶2] Lewis presents four issues, which we restate as:
[¶3] In 2020, Lewis was an inmate at the Wabash Correctional Facility ("WCF"). In the fall of 2020, Lewis was housed in the Special Confinement Unit ("SCU")-a separate area of the facility where certain inmates are kept separated from the general prison population. Inmates in the SCU are confined in single-person cells, and no more than one SCU inmate can be out of his cell at any given time. Each SCU inmate is escorted by corrections officers to a recreational area once per day, where the inmate can exercise alone.
[¶4] On September 12, 2020, while Lewis was in the recreational area, Correctional Sergeant Katie Watts noticed that Lewis had a water bottle with him, which was not permitted. Sergeant Watts confiscated Lewis's bottle and observed feces in the bottle. Inmates often use bottles to throw fecal matter on other inmates or prison staff. Due to this violation, Sergeant Watts placed Lewis on "strip cell status," during which the inmate is placed in a holding cell while the inmate's personal cell is thoroughly inspected.[1] Tr. Vol. II. p. 110. Sergeant Watts inspected Lewis's cell with the help of Nelson Santiago, an inmate who was assigned to work in the SCU and assist correctional officers there. Sergeant Watts continually watched Santiago, and he never left her sight during the inspection of Lewis's cell. During the inspection, Sergeant Watts found two shanks-homemade knives-located in the track above the door of Lewis's cell.
The shanks were constructed from toothbrush handles, plastic wrap, and blades from a disposable razor. Sergeant Watts testified that it would not have been possible for Santiago to have placed the shanks in Lewis's cell because she was watching Santiago at all times. Due to the nature of their construction, the shanks were capable of causing serious injury or death.
[¶5] On November 8, 2019, the State charged Lewis with possession by an inmate of material capable of causing bodily injury, specifically a deadly weapon, a Level 4 felony. The trial court appointed attorney James Hanner to represent Lewis. Attorney Hanner later filed a motion requesting the trial court to appoint attorney Douglas Followell to act as co-counsel. At Lewis's request, Attorney Hanner also filed a motion asking the court to permit Lewis to proceed with "hybrid representation," in which Lewis would represent himself with the assistance of attorneys Hanner and Followell. The trial court denied the request for hybrid representation but did appoint Attorney Followell to act as Attorney Hanner's co-counsel.
[¶6] At a pretrial conference, Lewis complained that there was "too much conflict of interest between" Lewis and Attorney Followell. Tr. Vol. II p. 28. Lewis requested a replacement attorney for Attorney Followell, which the trial court denied.
[¶7] A jury trial was held on July 20, 2022. At the conclusion of the State's case-in-chief, Lewis's counsel indicated that he intended to call as witnesses several prison inmates and corrections officers to testify regarding the conditions at WCF and the dangers present in the prison. Attorney Hanner stated:
Yes, Judge, pursuant to your earlier directive, which is not of record, you indicated to me and co-counsel, that you would not allow me to call on my client's behalf, inmates or correctional officers, familiar with [WCF] to testify as to its conditions, their personal perceptions concerning the safety and the dangers present unless they had personal knowledge of my client's situation. [W]e would have called such witnesses and Bryce Taylor Detro, Tyrus Bryant, and Drew Dickman, Henry Gibson, Frank Vanihell, Xavier Miller, and Dillon Orman, and Steven Hanna, would all [have] testified as to the horrific conditions of [WCF] and their perceived need to protect themselves by any means necessary. And, we feel that your failure to allow us to present that evidence has effectively gutted our defense in this case, leaving us only with the Defendant to testify....
Tr. Vol. II p. 158-59.[2] The State responded by arguing that its own witnesses had testified regarding the violence in WCF and that Lewis's proposed evidence was cumulative. The trial court affirmed its earlier off-the-record ruling and excluded these witnesses.
[¶8] Lewis then testified on his own behalf and stated that WCF was "violent, brutal, savage," and that he had seen horrible crimes committed by inmates on other inmates, including murder and rape. Id. at 163. Lewis testified that he fashioned the shanks for protection and insisted that he had a constitutional right to bear arms.[3] Lewis's counsel did not request that the jury be instructed regarding the defenses of self-defense or necessity. Instead, he effectively argued for jury nullification-for the jury to ignore the law and the undisputed facts and acquit Lewis despite the law. The jury was unpersuaded and found Lewis guilty as charged.
[¶9] At the sentencing hearing on August 24, 2022, Lewis's counsel admitted that he could see no statutory mitigating factors but noted that Lewis claimed to have had meningitis and suffered from concussions in the past. This, counsel argued, resulted in brain damage, which impaired Lewis's ability to control his aggressive behavior. The trial court found no significant mitigating factors and found as aggravating factors that Lewis showed no remorse for his actions and demonstrated an unwillingness to abide by prison rules. The trial court sentenced Lewis to ten years, all executed, to be served consecutively to the sentence Lewis was serving at the time he committed the instant offense. Lewis now appeals.
[¶10] Lewis first contends that the trial court abused its discretion by excluding the testimony of the prison inmates and correctional officers he intended to call to testify regarding the dangerous conditions in the prison and the need to protect himself from harm by other prisoners. The trial court concluded that the testimony of Lewis's proffered witnesses would be "repetitive," "cumulative," and irrelevant. Tr. Vol. II. p. 161.
[¶11] "We review challenges to the exclusion of evidence for an abuse of the trial court's discretion." Dunn v. State, 202 N.E.3d 1158, 1162 (Ind.Ct.App. 2023) (citing Clark v. State, 994 N.E.2d 252, 259-60 (Ind. 2013)). On appeal, we will reverse only if the trial court has abused its discretion. Id. A trial court abuses its discretion when its decision is clearly against the logic and effect of the facts and circumstances, and the error affects a party's substantial rights. Id. We may affirm the trial court's evidentiary decision on any basis supported by the record. Means v. State, 201 N.E.3d 1158, 1162-63 (Ind. 2023) (citing Ramirez v. State, 174 N.E.3d 181, 190 n.2 (Ind. 2021)).[4] [¶12] Here, we agree with the trial court that the testimony of the witnesses that Lewis wished to present would have been irrelevant. Indiana Evidence Rule 401 provides that evidence is relevant if "(a) it has any tendency to make a fact more or less probable than it would be without the evidence," and "(b) the fact is of consequence in determining the action." Under Evidence Rule 402, relevant evidence is admissible unless such admission is prohibited by: "(a) the United States Constitution; (b) the Indiana constitution; (c) a statute not in conflict with these rules; (d) these rules; or (e) other rules applicable in the courts of this state." Irrelevant evidence is inadmissible. Id.
[¶13] Lewis was charged with possession by an inmate of material capable of causing bodily injury, specifically a deadly weapon. This crime is defined by statute as follows:
To continue reading
Request your trial