Scroggin v. State
| Decision Date | 31 March 2015 |
| Docket Number | No. 64A03–1410–CR–352.,64A03–1410–CR–352. |
| Citation | 31 N.E.3d 549 (Table) |
| Parties | Brandon SCROGGIN, Appellant–Defendant, v. STATE of Indiana, Appellee–Plaintiff. |
| Court | Indiana Appellate Court |
Brandon Scroggin, Bunker Hill, IN, Appellant Pro Se.
Gregory F. Zoeller, Attorney General of Indiana, George P. Sherman, Deputy Attorney General, Indianapolis, IN, Attorneys for Appellee.
BRADFORD
, Judge.
[1] During the late evening hours of March 10, 2012 and early morning hours of March 11, 2012, Appellant–Defendant Brandon Scroggin took the vehicle of a man whom he had met in a Lake County bar and drove it to Porter County, where he committed various criminal acts against his ex-girlfriend, V.M., and her family. On May 4, 2012, Appellee–Plaintiff the State of Indiana (the “State”) charged Scroggin with Class D felony arson, Class D felony intimidation, and Class A misdemeanor criminal mischief. On June 29, 2012, the State filed an additional charge of Class C felony receiving stolen auto parts. The State also subsequently alleged that Scroggin was a habitual offender. The trial court held a trifurcated jury trial on August 6 through 9, 2012, after which the jury found Scroggin guilty as charged and determined that he was a habitual offender. On January 4, 2013, the trial court sentenced Scroggin to an aggregate term of nineteen and one-half years imprisonment.
[2] In this belated appeal, Scroggin raises numerous contentions which we restate as whether: (1) his right to a speedy trial was violated, (2) he received ineffective assistance of trial counsel, (3) the evidence is sufficient to sustain his convictions, and (4) the trial court abused its discretion in sentencing him. Because we conclude that the trial court abused its discretion in imposing a portion of Scroggin's aggregate nineteen-and-one-half-year sentence, we affirm in part, reverse in part, and remand to the trial court with instructions.
[3] In January of 2012, V.M. lived in Portage with her six-year-old son. Near the end of January, V.M. met Scroggin. Although V.M. did not initially want to engage in a sexual relationship with Scroggin, “it happened anyways,” trial tr. p. 277, and she “got sucked into” the relationship. Trial Tr. p. 278. Scroggin soon “moved himself” into V.M.'s home. Trial Tr. p. 278. Twice during February of 2012, V.M. tried to convince Scroggin to move out of her residence, but each time Scroggin's uncle arrived to help him move out, Scroggin refused to leave. Scroggin was controlling of V.M. and prevented her from speaking with her friends over the telephone unless she put the telephone on “speaker.” Trial Tr. p. 279.
[4] On March 10, 2012, two of V.M.'s friends decided to intervene on V.M.'s behalf. When one of these friends and V.M.'s mother came to V.M.'s residence, they noticed marks on V.M.'s body which had been inflicted upon V.M. by Scroggin. V.M.'s friend confronted Scroggin and V.M. told her mother that she wanted out of the situation. Scroggin collected his belongings and was cooperative with V.M.'s mother when she, taking V.M. with them, drove Scroggin to his uncle's home in Lake County. V.M. spent the rest of the day and evening with her friends at one of their homes. During the evening V.M. received numerous telephone calls from Scroggin.
[5] Later that night, Scroggin, who did not have his own vehicle, arrived at a bar in Lake County that was located a few blocks from his uncle's home. Inside the bar, Scroggin met an elderly gentlemen named Paul Rouhselange. Scroggin and Rouhselange used Rouhselange's white Ford minivan to drive to two other bars located nearby. Rouhselange allowed Scroggin to drive the minivan on at least one of those trips. While they were at one of the bars, Scroggin asked Rouhselange if he could use Rouhselange's cellular phone to “call his girlfriend or something.” Trial Tr. p. 260. Rouhselange agreed, and, after Scroggin had been gone for approximately fifteen to twenty minutes, Rouhselange looked outside the bar and noticed that his van and Scroggin were gone. Rouhselange had not given Scroggin permission to take the minivan.
[6] Scroggin used Rouhselange's cellular phone to call or text V.M. dozens of times. Some of Scroggin's voice messages were later recovered from V.M.'s cellular phone and were admitted into evidence at trial. In one of these messages, Scroggin screamed at V.M. that “[i]f you're at your mother's house, you'll hear this.” Trial Tr. p. 295. Scroggin subsequently called V.M. and told her that he was “in a stolen vehicle, I got money in my pocket, and I don't give ... a f[* * *] about anything right now.” Trial Tr. p. 296. Scroggin later called V.M. and told her that he had set her vehicle on fire, but that he had “put it out for you.” Trial Tr. p. 296. Scroggin also left a voice message telling V.M. that he was sorry for what happened to her vehicle and offering to fix it.
[7] After V.M. had turned off her phone and slept for a while, she awoke to find more voice messages from Scroggin. V.M. called her mother and told her to check on a red Monte Carlo that was parked outside of V.M.'s mother's home. The red Monte Carlo was registered to V.M.'s brother and was the vehicle that V.M.'s mother had used to move Scroggin out of V.M.'s residence the day before. V.M.'s mother saw that the Monte Carlo, which was parked on the street outside of her home, had been damaged on the driver's side. Specifically, the Monte Carlo had been dented on the driver's side and the entire driver's side was marred by a streak of white paint consistent with paint transferred from a white or lighter-colored vehicle. The damage to the Monte Carlo was later estimated to be $2000.00.
[8] V.M.'s mother used another vehicle to pick V.M. up from her friend's residence and drive her to her residence, which was about six miles from her mother's home. V.M.'s red Ford Explorer was parked under the carport in front of V.M.'s residence. The Ford Explorer had been damaged by a fire that was later determined to have originated in the glove box and to have been intentionally set. The Ford Explorer was damaged to the point that it was no longer driveable. V.M. indicated that in light of the intimidating phone calls that she had received from Scroggin, his act of arson made her even more afraid of him because she knew he was capable of carrying through on his levied threats. Rouhselange's white minivan, which had been reported stolen, was later located by Rouhselange in a parking lot near the bar in Lake County from which Scroggin had taken it. The minivan had sustained front-end damage near the passenger-side headlamp.
[9] On March 13, 2012, V.M. obtained a no-contact order against Scroggin. V.M. subsequently received messages from Scroggin threatening to “set [her] place on fire.” Trial Tr. p. 333. After receiving Scroggin's threat, V.M. and her son moved into a domestic violence shelter, where they stayed for thirty-six days.
[10] On May 4, 2012, the State charged Scroggin with Class D felony arson, Class D felony intimidation, and Class A misdemeanor criminal mischief. Scroggin was arrested on May 11, 2012, and remained in jail through the time of his trial. During a May 15, 2012 initial hearing, Scroggin indicated that he wished to proceed pro se and requested a “fast and speedy” trial date pursuant to Indiana Rule of Criminal Procedure 4(B)(1)
(“Criminal Rule 4(B)(1) ”). May 15, 2012 Tr. p. 8. The trial court granted Scroggin's request and scheduled a jury trial for July 23, 2012.
[11] On June 25, 2012, the State filed a verified motion for a continuance because the deputy prosecutor had learned that a critical witness was unavailable to testify the week of July 23, 2012. The trial court granted the State's motion over Scroggin's objection. The trial court rescheduled Scroggin's trial for August 6, 2012. On June 29, 2012, the State filed an additional charge of Class C felony receiving stolen auto parts. The State also subsequently alleged that Scroggin was a habitual offender.
[12] Scroggin requested that he be appointed counsel during a July 2, 2012 initial hearing on the receiving stolen auto parts charge. The trial court granted Scroggin's requested and appointed counsel to represent Scroggin. On July 3, 2012, Scroggin filed a pro se motion for discharge, claiming that the seventy-day time limit for bringing an individual to trial prescribed in Criminal Rule 4(B)
would expire on July 23, 2012, and that he should be discharged if not tried by that date.
[13] On July 13, 2012, the trial court held a hearing to discuss Scroggin's trial date. During this hearing, Scroggin's counsel notified the trial court that Scroggin “want[ed] to go ahead with” the August 6, 2012 trial date. July 13, 2012 Tr. p. 3. Also during this hearing, Scroggin personally confirmed that he wished to go ahead with the August 6, 2012 trial date.
[14] Scroggin's three-day trifurcated jury trial commenced on August 6, 2012.
On August 9, 2012, Scroggin was found guilty of Arson, Intimidation, Criminal Mischief, and Receiving Stolen Auto Parts. On January 4, 2013, the trial court sentenced Scroggin to three years imprisonment for Arson, three years imprisonment for Intimidation, one year imprisonment for Criminal Mischief, and eight years imprisonment for Receiving Stolen Auto Parts; the sentences were run consecutively to one another. Pursuant to the jury's finding that Scroggin was a Habitual Offender, the trial court enhanced his sentence by 4½ years. This yielded an aggregate term of imprisonment of 19½ years.
Scroggin v. State, No. 64A04–1306–CR–312 *1 (Ind. Ct.App. June 30, 2014). This belated appeal follows.
Discussion and Decision
[15] Scroggin contends that his convictions should be reversed and the charges dismissed because the State failed to bring him to trial within the time period required by Criminal Rule 4(B)(1)
.
When, as here, a defendant moves for a speedy trial, he invokes the procedures...
To continue reading
Request your trial