Rodriguez v. State
| Decision Date | 09 September 2011 |
| Docket Number | No. 49A05-1006-CR-410,49A05-1006-CR-410 |
| Parties | JOSE RODRIGUEZ, Appellant-Defendant, v. STATE OF INDIANA, Appellee-Plaintiff. |
| Court | Court of Appeals of Indiana |
Pursuant to Ind. Appellate Rule 65(D), this Memorandum Decision shall not be regarded as precedent or cited before any court except for the purpose of establishing the defense of res judicata, collateral estoppel, or the law of the case.
ATTORNEY FOR APPELLANT:
ROBERT D. KING, JR.
The Law Office of Robert D. King, Jr., P.C.
Indianapolis, Indiana
ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE:
GREGORY F. ZOELLER
Attorney General of Indiana
Deputy Attorney General
Indianapolis, Indiana
APPEAL FROM THE MARION SUPERIOR COURT
The Honorable Patricia J. Gifford, Senior Judge
Jose Rodriguez appeals his conviction for attempted murder and his sentencing enhancement for acting at the direction of or in affiliation with a gang. Rodriguez argues that there is insufficient evidence to sustain his conviction and sentencing enhancement. We find sufficient evidence to sustain both. In particular, we find sufficient evidence that Rodriguez was a gang member and that he committed the underlying offense at the direction of or in affiliation with the gang. We further conclude that the trial court did not err by admitting evidence of Rodriguez's gang membership in the guilt phase of trial, and we are not persuaded that Rodriguez's sentence is inappropriate in light of the nature of his offense or his character. We affirm his conviction and sentence.
The evidence most favorable to the verdict reveals that Rodriguez, his friend Mehn Mon Sorn, and Sorn's brother Chai were all members of a criminal gang known as the "West Side 13." The West Side 13 is a local chapter of the "Surenos" or "Sur 13" gang based in Southern California. To join the Sur 13, prospective members must commit a felony and/or sustain a battery from current members for an allotted period of time. The West Side 13 has a longstanding rivalry with another local Indianapolis gang known as "18th Street." Typical practice of the gangs is to commit violent crimes against one another.
One night Rodriguez, Sorn, and Chai attended a house party in Indianapolis. Both Rodriguez and Sorn were armed with .380 caliber handguns. Sorn brought an additional rifle which he stored underneath his car.
Also attending the party was Elesvan Cabrales-Cantreras and his friend Rogelio Rojas. Cabrales-Cantreras and Rojas were believed to be members of the rival 18th Street gang.
At some point Sorn became involved in a dispute with Rojas in the backyard. Soon they resorted to fisticuffs. Sorn revealed his pistol to Rojas. Rojas said he was going to retrieve his own gun, and he began running toward the front of the house.
Sorn informed Rodriguez that Rojas was getting a gun. Rodriguez responded, "Let's go get them." Sorn instructed Chai to retrieve the rifle from underneath his car. Rojas ran to the front of the house and called out for Cabrales-Cantreras. Cabrales-Cantreras was inside. He announced to his friends, "Let's get out." The partygoers made their way out the front door.
Rojas and several other people—also alleged to be 18th Street gang members— assembled in the middle of the street. The West Side 13 members remained in front of the house.
Police Officer David Moore was driving nearby to assist a traffic stop when he observed the hubbub. He saw two distinct lines of people forming in the street, as in a Civil War scene. Officer Moore made a u-turn to investigate.
Rodriguez began discharging his handgun. Chai fired into the crowd using the rifle. Sorn drew his own gun when Cabrales-Cantreras approached and punched him. Sorn fell to the ground. The two then started to wrestle over Sorn's gun. Sorn called out to Rodriguez, "Get this dude."
Rodriguez stood three to five feet away, aimed at Cabrales-Cantreras, and shot him in the back of the leg. Cabrales-Cantreras continued to fight with Sorn. Rodriguez started to run away but stopped and turned back. He shot Cabrales-Cantreras twice more. Then his gun jammed, so he took the rifle from Chai and shot Cabrales-Cantreras again. Rodriguez and Chai heard police sirens and fled.
Officer Moore approached on foot and observed Sorn and Cabrales-Cantreras still wrestling. Officer Moore identified himself and ordered them to stop. Sorn rolled away in the prone position. Cabrales-Cantreras shot four times in Moore's direction. Moore fired three shots back. Cabrales-Cantreras aimed at Moore again, at which time Moore discharged four more rounds. Cabrales-Cantreras fell over dead, having sustained a total of fourteen gunshot wounds. Moore inflicted seven of them.
The State charged Rodriguez with, among other things, the Class A felony attempted murder of Cabrales-Cantreras. The State also sought a sentencing enhancement for attempted murder, alleging that Rodriguez had acted at the direction of or in affiliation with a criminal gang.
The State filed notice of intent to offer evidence of Rodriguez's gang membership during the guilt phase of trial. The State sought to introduce the evidence as proof of motive. The trial court granted the State's request following a hearing and over the defense's motion to exclude. Evidence of Rodriguez's gang membership was introduced in the State's case-in-chief.
A jury found Rodriguez guilty as charged, and in a bifurcated sentencing proceeding, the jury found that Rodriguez was a criminal gang member and that he had acted at the direction of or in affiliation with the gang.
The trial court sentenced Rodriguez to twenty-five years for attempted murder plus an additional twenty-five years due to the gang-affiliation enhancement. Rodriguez appeals.
Rodriguez raises three issues which we reorder and restate as: (I) whether the trial court erred by admitting evidence of Rodriguez's gang membership in the guilt phase of trial, (II) whether the evidence is sufficient to sustain Rodriguez's (A) attempted murder conviction and (B) gang affiliation sentencing enhancement, and (III) whether his fifty-year sentence is inappropriate in light of the nature of his offense and his character.
Rodriguez argues that the trial court erred by admitting evidence of his gang affiliation in the first phase of trial. Rodriguez claims the evidence was irrelevant and unfairly prejudicial.
Indiana Evidence Rule 404(b) provides that Evidence Rule 404(b) is designed to prevent the jury from assessing a defendant's present guilt on the basis of his propensities—the so-called "forbiddeninference." Hicks v. State, 690 N.E.2d 215, 218-19 (Ind. 1997). While applied primarily in the context of "prior criminal acts," the rule has been given a broad interpretation and has been held to apply to any conduct which may bear adversely on the jury's judgment of the defendant's character. Kimble v. State, 659 N.E.2d 182, 184 n.5 (Ind. Ct. App. 1996), trans. denied. Uncharged misconduct evidence may be admissible to prove motive, intent, or other material facts at issue in a case. Embry v. State, 923 N.E.2d 1, 9 (Ind. Ct. App. 2010), trans. denied. Rule 404(b)'s list of permissible purposes is illustrative but not exhaustive. Id.
In assessing the admissibility of 404(b) evidence, a trial court must (1) determine that the evidence of other crimes, wrongs, or acts is relevant to a matter at issue other than the defendant's propensity to commit the charged act and (2) balance the probative value of the evidence against its prejudicial effect pursuant to Indiana Evidence Rule 403. Wilson v. State, 765 N.E.2d 1265, 1270 (Ind. 2002). Rule 403 provides that "[a]lthough relevant, evidence may be excluded if its probative value is substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice, confusion of the issues, or misleading the jury . . . ."
It is well-settled that evidence of motive is always relevant in the proof of an offense. Tompkins v. State, 669 N.E.2d 394, 397 (Ind. 1996). "Evidence of motive may be offered to prove that the act was committed, or to prove the identity of the actor, or to prove the requisite mental state." 22 Charles Alan Wright & Kenneth W. Graham, Jr., Federal Practice & Procedure § 5240 (1978).
Furthermore, evidence of gang affiliation is routinely admitted as proof of motive to commit an alleged violent crime. See, e.g., Williams v. State, 690 N.E.2d 162, 173(Ind. 1997) (); Burgett v. State, 758 N.E.2d 571, 579-80 (Ind. Ct. App. 2001) ( ), trans. denied; Cadiz v. State, 683 N.E.2d 597, 599-600 (Ind. Ct. App. 1997) ; see also 1 Edward J. Imwinkelried, Uncharged Misconduct Evidence § 3:17 (2006) ...
To continue reading
Request your trial