Martin v. State
| Decision Date | 11 December 2000 |
| Docket Number | No. 06A05-0004-PC-149.,06A05-0004-PC-149. |
| Citation | 740 N.E.2d 137 |
| Parties | Charles R. MARTIN, Appellant-Petitioner, v. STATE of Indiana, Appellee-Respondent. |
| Court | Indiana Appellate Court |
Susan K. Carpenter, Public Defender of Indiana, Jeffrey R. Wright, Deputy Public Defender, Indianapolis, Indiana, Attorneys for Appellant.
Karen M. Freeman-Wilson, Attorney General of Indiana, Christopher L. Lafuse, Deputy Attorney General, Indianapolis, Indiana, Attorneys for Appellee.
Charles Martin appeals from the trial court's denial of his petition for post-conviction relief which alleged that his convictions for murder and kidnapping violated the Double Jeopardy clauses of the United States and Indiana Constitutions. We affirm.
Martin raises two issues for our review, which we restate as follows:
1. Whether his convictions for both murder and kidnapping violate the principles of Double Jeopardy; and
2. Whether collateral estoppel requires that his conviction of kidnapping be vacated.
In 1974, Martin and Lester French were involved in the kidnapping, rape and murder of Kathy Wylie. Martin was charged with first degree murder, kidnapping, robbery, and rape. He entered a plea of guilty to all charges, and was sentenced to death for murder, life imprisonment for kidnapping, and consecutive sentences of thirty years each for robbery and rape. The death sentence was subsequently commuted to life imprisonment.
In 1999, Martin filed a petition for postconviction relief, alleging that his convictions for murder committed while engaged in the crime of kidnapping and kidnapping violate the Double Jeopardy provisions of the federal and state constitutions. Because Martin's petition raised a question of law, the trial court entered its order denying post-conviction relief without holding a hearing pursuant to each side's motion for summary disposition. The order states, in pertinent part, as follows:
R. 310-11. Martin now appeals.
Martin first alleges that the trial court erred in denying his petition for post-conviction relief because his conviction for kidnapping is in violation of the principles of double jeopardy due to his conviction for murder being based upon the killing of the victim while engaged in the crime of kidnapping.
Our post-conviction rules do not afford the petitioner the opportunity for a "super-appeal." Ben-Yisrayl v. State, 729 N.E.2d 102, 105 (Ind.2000). Rather, they create a narrow remedy for subsequent collateral challenges to convictions. Id. The petitioner must establish his grounds for relief by a preponderance of the evidence. Ind. Post Conviction Rule 1(5). On appeal from the denial of post-conviction relief, the petitioner stands in the position of one appealing from a negative judgment. A party appealing from a negative judgment must establish that the evidence is without conflict and, as a whole, points unmistakably and unerringly to a conclusion contrary to that of the postconviction court. Bigler v. State, 732 N.E.2d 191, 194 (Ind.Ct.App.2000), trans. denied. We accept the trial court's findings of fact unless they are clearly erroneous, but we do not defer to the trial court's conclusions of law. We examine only the probative evidence and reasonable inferences that support the post-conviction court's determination and we do not reweigh the evidence or judge witness credibility. Id.
The Double Jeopardy Clause provides that no person "shall be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb." U.S. Const. amend. V. The Double Jeopardy Clause yields three protections: (1) protection from subsequent prosecution for the same offense after an acquittal; (2) protection from subsequent prosecution for the same offense after conviction; and (3) protection from multiple punishments for the same offense. Kennedy v. State, 674 N.E.2d 966, 967 (Ind.1996). The purpose of the Double Jeopardy Clause is to "ensure that a court imposes no more punishment on a defendant than the legislature intended." Spurlock v. State, 718 N.E.2d 773, 779 (Ind.Ct. App.1999), trans. denied.
Federal double jeopardy claims are controlled by the "same elements" test set forth in Blockburger v. United States, 284 U.S. 299, 304, 52 S.Ct. 180, 76 L.Ed. 306 (1932). In determining whether there are two offenses or one under Blockburger, the focus is on whether each statutory provision "requires proof of an additional fact which the other does not." Id. See also Willey v. State, 712 N.E.2d 434, 445 (Ind.1999)
. Moreover, for our purposes, Martin's state double jeopardy claim is also controlled by the Blockburger analysis. A recent decision of our supreme court established for the first time that Indiana's Double Jeopardy Clause is not coterminous with its federal counterpart. See Richardson v. State, 717 N.E.2d 32 (Ind.1999). In Richardson, the court developed a two-part test for determining whether two convictions are permissible. "[T]wo or more offenses are the `same offense' in violation of Article I, Section 14 of the Indiana Constitution if, with respect to either the statutory elements of the charged crimes or the actual evidence used to convict, the essential elements of one challenged offense also establish the essential elements of another challenged offense." Id. at 49 (emphasis in original).
The first aspect of an Indiana double jeopardy analysis, the "statutory elements" test, is consistent with the federal Blockburger test. Under the second aspect of the Indiana double jeopardy analysis, the "actual evidence" test, we must determine whether each offense was established by separate and distinct facts. As explained in Richardson:
Under this inquiry, the actual evidence presented at trial is examined to determine whether each challenged offense was established by separate and distinct facts. To show that two challenged offenses constitute the "same offense" in a claim of double jeopardy, a defendant must demonstrate a reasonable possibility that the evidentiary facts used by the fact-finder to establish the essential elements of one offense may also have been used to establish the essential elements of a second challenged offense.
Id. at 53. However, because Richardson announced "a new constitutional rule of criminal procedure ... [it] is not available for retroactive application in post-conviction proceedings." Taylor v. State, 717 N.E.2d 90, 95 (Ind.1999).1 Thus, Martin cannot, and acknowledges that he cannot, rely on the actual evidence test announced in Richardson, but is limited to the formulation that existed previously; that is, the same elements test.
Martin was charged with murder in the first degree and kidnapping as follows:
COUNT I
... CHARLES R. MARTIN, on or about the 22nd day of July, 1974, at the County of Hamilton, did unlawfully and feloniously kill and murder one KATHY WYLIE while engaged in the crime of kidnapping, by unlawfully, feloniously and forcibly carrying away, decoying and kidnapping KATHY WYLIE from a place within the State of Indiana ... with the felonious intention of carrying the said KATHY WYLIE away from said place within said State ... and while engaged in the crime of kidnapping, did unlawfully and feloniously kill and murder KATHY WYLIE by unlawfully and feloniously striking and beating KATHY WYLIE in and about the head area with a wrench ... and did hold the head of KATHY WYLIE under the surface of the White River, and that said KATHY WYLIE did then and there die from asphyxia by drowning....
All of which is contrary to the form of the Statute in such cases made and provided, to-wit: Indiana Code Section 35-13-4-1(B)(4)....
In 1974, the time relevant to our discussion herein, Indiana Code section 35-13-4-1 read, in pertinent part, as follows:
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Parker v. State
...insufficient evidence to prove that juvenile was involved in the same robbery as the defendants), trans. denied ; Martin v. State , 740 N.E.2d 137, 142 (Ind. Ct. App. 2000) (holding that post-conviction petitioner could not avail himself of collateral estoppel based on successful post-convi......
-
Lee v. State
...of fact unless they are clearly erroneous, but we do not defer to the post-conviction court's conclusions of law. Martin v. State, 740 N.E.2d 137, 139 (Ind.Ct.App.2000). Moreover, when the petitioner appeals from a denial of relief, the denial is considered a negative judgment and therefore......
-
Goldsberry v. State
...United States Supreme Court in Blockburger v. United States, 284 U.S. 299, 304, 52 S.Ct. 180, 76 L.Ed. 306 (1932). Martin v. State, 740 N.E.2d 137, 140 (Ind.Ct.App.2000),trans. denied 753 N.E.2d 13 (Ind.2001). To determine whether two offenses are the same under the "statutory elements" tes......
-
Weiss v. State
...of fact unless they are clearly erroneous, but we do not defer to the post-conviction court's conclusions of law. Martin v. State, 740 N.E.2d 137, 139 (Ind.Ct.App.2000). Moreover, when the petitioner appeals from a denial of relief, the denial is considered a negative judgment and therefore......