Pacheco-Aleman v. State
| Docket Number | 23A-CR-91 |
| Decision Date | 30 October 2023 |
| Parties | Marco Antonio Pacheco-Aleman, Appellant-Defendant, v. State of Indiana, Appellee-Plaintiff. |
| Court | Court of Appeals of Indiana |
1
Marco Antonio Pacheco-Aleman, Appellant-Defendant,
v.
State of Indiana, Appellee-Plaintiff.
No. 23A-CR-91
Court of Appeals of Indiana
October 30, 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 Appellate Rule 65(D), this Memorandum Decision is not binding precedent for any court and may be cited only for persuasive value or to establish res judicata, collateral estoppel, or law of the case.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 Marion Superior Court The Honorable Cynthia L. Oetjen, Judge Trial Court Cause No. 49D30-2103-MR-8214
ATTORNEY FOR APPELLANT Terry Tolliver Brattain Minnix Tolliver Indianapolis, Indiana
ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE Theodore E. Rokita Attorney General of Indiana Kathy Bradley Deputy Attorney General Indianapolis, Indiana
MEMORANDUM DECISION
TAVITAS, JUDGE.
Case Summary
[¶ 1] Marco Pacheco-Aleman appeals his conviction for the murder of his wife, Karen Castro-Martinez. We find Pacheco-Aleman's arguments without merit and, accordingly, affirm.
Issues
[¶ 2] Pacheco-Aleman raises three issues on appeal, which we reorder and restate as:
I. Whether his trial counsel was ineffective for failing to raise a hearsay objection to certain testimony
II. Whether the trial court abused its discretion by failing to instruct the jury on voluntary manslaughter as a lesser-included offense of murder
III. Whether the State presented sufficient evidence to support Pacheco-Aleman's conviction
Facts
[¶ 3] Pacheco-Aleman lived with his wife, Karen, and their son, M.M., in an apartment on the third floor of an apartment building in Indianapolis. Their neighbor, Keile Funes, lived in the apartment next door.
[¶ 4] On March 13, 2022, the family visited Pacheco-Aleman's sister, Ela. Toward the evening, Pacheco-Aleman left Ela's alone and went to the family's apartment; however, he was locked out. At approximately 6:20 p.m., Pacheco-
Aleman called Karen and told her to come unlock the apartment. He called her seven more times over the next fifteen minutes.
[¶ 5] On Funes's way to the basement laundry room, she passed Pacheco-Aleman in the hallway. Funes testified that Pacheco-Aleman was drunk, "look[ed] . . . really odd," and sounded "very altered or upset towards" Karen. Tr. Vol. II p. 122, 124. Funes "got frightened when [she] saw him with that attitude." Id. at 124. Funes could still hear Pacheco-Aleman yelling over the phone from the basement laundry room.
[¶ 6] Karen and M.M. arrived home at the apartment at approximately 7:00 p.m., and Funes heard Karen and Pacheco-Aleman arguing. Funes overheard Karen tell Pacheco-Aleman "that if he was the owner of the apartment[,] why wouldn't . . . he just knock the door down." Id. at 115.
[¶ 7] According to Funes, Karen unlocked the door, and the family went inside the apartment, where the argument continued. A short time later, Funes heard a gunshot, and Karen "yelled that she did not want to die." Id. at 124. Funes also heard M.M. "desperate[ly]" and repeatedly screaming, "Dad, call the ambulance. Why d[id] you do this? Why d[id] you kill my mom?" Id. at 118.
[¶ 8] Funes had her brother-in-law contact 911 to report the shooting. The tenant who lived below Pacheco-Aleman also contacted 911. He reported that Pacheco-Aleman "killed his wife" and that he saw Pacheco-Aleman "running away with his son" and drive off. State's Ex. 2 2:30; 3:14. Pacheco-Aleman was "carrying a gun in his arms, and he seemed really scared ...." Id. at 5:40.
[¶ 9] Law enforcement responded to the call and found Karen dead at the scene. There were no signs of forced entry or struggle in the apartment. An autopsy later determined that Karen had been shot in the bridge of the nose from an "intermediate range." Tr. Vol. II p. 168. Her death was ruled a homicide.
[¶ 10] Meanwhile, Pacheco-Aleman dropped off M.M. at Ela's residence and drove to Illinois. He then drove back through southern Indiana and was discovered sleeping in his car in the emergency lane of I-64 later that night. Law enforcement arrested Pacheco-Aleman and transported him to the Floyd County Jail, where a nine-millimeter bullet was discovered in his pants pocket. When Pacheco-Aleman's car was impounded, his cell phone was plugged in and the Apple Maps app was providing directions "towards [the] Eastern Seaboard." Id. at 198.
[¶ 11] On March 18, 2021, the State charged Pacheco-Aleman with murder, a felony. The trial court held a jury trial on October 31 and November 1, 2022. After the close of evidence, Pacheco-Aleman proffered a jury instruction on voluntary manslaughter as a lesser-included offense of murder. The State objected on the grounds that Karen's and Pacheco-Aleman's argument was insufficient to establish that Pacheco-Aleman acted under "sudden heat." Id. at 245. The trial court declined to instruct the jury on voluntary manslaughter. The jury found Pacheco-Aleman guilty of murder, and the trial court entered judgment of conviction and sentenced Pacheco-Aleman to fifty-five years in the Department of Correction. Pacheco-Aleman now appeals.
Discussion and Decision
I. Ineffective Assistance of Counsel
[¶ 12] Pacheco-Aleman argues that his trial counsel was ineffective for failing to raise a hearsay objection to Funes's testimony regarding Karen's statement "that if [Pacheco-Aleman] was the owner of the apartment[,] why wouldn't . . . he just knock the door down."[1] Tr. Vol. II p. 115. We are not persuaded.
[¶ 13] "The Sixth Amendment to the federal constitution, applied to this state in relevant part by the Fourteenth Amendment, protects the right of an accused '[i]n all criminal prosecutions . . . to have the assistance of counsel for his defense,'" and "[o]ur state constitution protects the same right." Hanks v. State, 71 N.E.3d 1178, 1183 (Ind.Ct.App. 2017) (quoting U.S. Const. amend. VI and citing Powell v. Alabama, 287 U.S. 45, 68, 53 S.Ct. 55, 64 (1932); Ind. Const. art 1, § 13), trans. denied. "The assistance of counsel means the effective assistance of counsel." Id. (citing Powell, 287 U.S. at 71, 53 S.Ct. at 65) (emphasis in original).
[¶ 14] To prevail on his ineffective assistance of trial counsel claim, Pacheco-Aleman must show that: (1) his trial counsel's performance fell short of prevailing professional norms; and (2) his trial counsel's deficient performance prejudiced his defense. Gibson v. State, 133 N.E.3d 673, 682 (Ind. 2019)
(citing Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 687, 104 S.Ct. 2052, 2064 (1984)). A showing of deficient performance "requires proof that legal representation lacked 'an objective standard of reasonableness,' effectively depriving the defendant of his Sixth Amendment right to counsel." Id. (quoting Overstreet v. State, 877 N.E.2d 144, 152 (Ind. 2007)). Additionally, "[t]o demonstrate prejudice, the defendant must show a reasonable probability that, but for counsel's errors, the proceedings below would have resulted in a different outcome." Id. "A reasonable probability is a probability sufficient to undermine confidence in the outcome." Strickland, 466 U.S. at 694, 104 S.Ct. at 2068.
[¶ 15] Failure to satisfy either the deficient performance prong or the prejudice prong will cause the claim to fail. Grinstead v. State, 845 N.E.2d 1027, 1031 (Ind. 2006). Most ineffective assistance of counsel claims can be resolved by the prejudice inquiry alone. Id.
[¶ 16] That is the case here; Pacheco-Aleman fails to persuade us that his trial counsel's failure to raise a hearsay objection to Funes's testimony prejudiced him in light of the overwhelming evidence against him. The evidence established that, on the night of the murder, Pacheco-Aleman was drunk and upset that he was locked outside of the apartment. He called Karen numerous times in the span of minutes and yelled at her to come unlock the door, which Funes could hear from four flights below. Shortly after Karen arrived, Funes heard a gunshot, Karen yelled that she did not want to die, and M.M. asked why Pacheco-Aleman shot Karen. Pacheco-Aleman's downstairs neighbor contacted 911 and reported that Pacheco-Aleman shot his wife and ran away
with M.M. while carrying a gun. Pacheco-Aleman fled to Illinois and was later arrested in southern Indiana. He had a nine-millimeter bullet in his pocket and had directions on his cellphone to the Eastern Seaboard. There were no signs of forced entry or struggle in the apartment.
[¶ 17] Pacheco-Aleman's trial counsel's failure to raise a hearsay objection to Funes's testimony does not undermine our confidence in Pacheco-Aleman's conviction. Indeed, Pacheco-Aleman recognizes that the statements "do not have inculpatory value." Appellant's...
To continue reading
Request your trial