Vance v. State, No. 49S00-9108-CR-633

Docket NºNo. 49S00-9108-CR-633
Citation620 N.E.2d 687
Case DateSeptember 13, 1993
CourtSupreme Court of Indiana

Page 687

620 N.E.2d 687
Michael VANCE, Appellant,
v.
STATE of Indiana, Appellee.
No. 49S00-9108-CR-633.
Supreme Court of Indiana.
Sept. 13, 1993.

Page 688

Belle T. Choate, Choate Visher & Haith, Indianapolis, for appellant.

Linley E. Pearson, Atty. Gen., Geoff Davis, Deputy Atty. Gen., for appellee.

GIVAN, Justice.

A jury trial resulted in the conviction of appellant of two counts of Felony Murder; Attempted Murder, a Class A felony; Robbery, a Class A felony; and Conspiracy to Commit Robbery, a Class B felony. The trial court merged the robbery offenses and entered judgment on robbery as a Class B felony. Appellant received the maximum sentences of sixty (60) years for each of the felony murder counts, fifty (50) years for the attempted murder count, and twenty (20) years for the robbery count, to be served consecutively for a total executed sentence of one hundred ninety (190) years.

The facts are: Amy Foshee worked as a waitress at Shoney's restaurant in Indianapolis. On the evening of November 15, 1989, when co-worker Eric Holmes teased her for "walking like a pigeon," she reported this harassment to her supervisor, Theresa Blosl, who in turn informed the shift manager, Charles Ervin. Ervin then summarily sent Holmes home. While riding home with co-worker Raymond Vance, appellant's brother, the angry Holmes threatened to kill Foshee.

Two or three hours later, at closing time, appellant, accompanied by Holmes, arrived at the restaurant to pick up his brother Raymond. When Raymond got off work, the three went outside; meanwhile, Foshee, Blosl and Ervin, who were riding home together, remained inside while Ervin counted the day's receipts. When Ervin opened the door to leave, appellant and Holmes walked in through the door and announced, "This is a stickup; give us your money." When Ervin began to argue with them, they acted as if they had been joking and told Foshee her car's tires were flat and she might need a ride home. All five persons then exited the restaurant.

Outside in the parking lot, it became apparent Foshee's tires indeed were flat, and Ervin decided he and the women should go back inside to use the telephone. After he opened the door, however, appellant and Holmes forced their way inside while Raymond remained outside. With appellant blocking the door, Holmes again

Page 689

demanded the money from Ervin while appellant repeated, "Take them out, man, take them out." After some argument, Ervin finally handed the money bag containing $1907 to appellant, who instructed Foshee and Blosl to turn around, face the wall and shut up. When they complied, Foshee later testified, they heard scuffling noises as if someone were being tackled followed by the sound of Ervin screaming loudly. Out of the corner of her eye, Foshee then saw the men grab Blosl; next, Foshee herself was grabbed and stabbed. She fell to the floor, feigning death, yet was stabbed twice more in the back. Foshee heard one of the men mention something about "murder in the first degree" and then they left.

Foshee waited a couple of minutes, got up and saw her co-workers bleeding to death, went to a telephone, dialed 911 and summoned help. Minutes later, Sheriff's Deputy Patrick Thompkins arrived and found Ervin and Blosl dead in the foyer. Before being taken to the hospital, Foshee told Deputy Thompkins her co-worker, Eric, accompanied by appellant, had stabbed her. Using further descriptions detailed by Foshee as well as other evidence retrieved from the crime scene, police were able to reconstruct the events leading up to the robbery and to identify the perpetrators.

Appellant contends the trial court erred in denying his motions for discharge made under Ind.Crim. Rule 4(B). During the fifteen months he was held in jail awaiting trial, appellant made four requests for early trial: May 16, 1990; August 20, 1990; October 2, 1990; and December 10, 1990. Trial was set for the following dates: March 29, 1990, August 20, 1990, December 4, 1990, and February 18, 1991, when trial began. Appellant maintains the court's failure to proceed to trial on August 20, 1990, and further failure to proceed on October 2, 1990, violated his right to be brought to trial within the 70-day period mandated by Crim.R. 4(B). He goes on to point out that he reasserted his request for speedy trial on December 10, 1990, yet his trial did not begin until 72 days later.

As the State notes, however, Crim.R. 4(B)(1) allows a trial date to be set beyond the 70-day limit where the court makes note of its congested calendar and sets the case for trial within a reasonable time. Young v. State (1988), Ind., 521 N.E.2d 671. Such was the situation here when the trial court set the August 20,...

To continue reading

Request your trial
32 practice notes
  • Burris v. Parke, No. 3:95-CV-0917 AS.
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 7th Circuit. United States District Court of Northern District of Indiana
    • December 26, 1996
    ...35-42-1-1(2). Under Indiana law, specific intent to kill need not be proved to convict a defendant of felony murder. See Vance v. State, 620 N.E.2d 687, 690 (Ind.1993) (finding that "while the crime of murder does require specific intent to kill, the crime of felony murder, for which appell......
  • Harrison v. State, No. 65S00-9105-DP-380
    • United States
    • Indiana Supreme Court of Indiana
    • January 4, 1995
    ...intent is an essential element constituting the crime of Murder in Indiana. Ind.Code § 35-42-1-1(1) (1988); Vance v. State (1993), Ind., 620 N.E.2d 687, 690; Abdul-Wadood v. State (1988), Ind., 521 N.E.2d 1299, 1300, reh'g denied. "[T]he Due Process Clause [of the Fourteenth Amendment] prot......
  • Peterson v. State, No. 45S00-9103-DP-223
    • United States
    • Indiana Supreme Court of Indiana
    • December 13, 1996
    ...substantial evidence to the contrary to determine whether there is sufficient evidence to support the ruling. See Vance v. State, 620 N.E.2d 687, 691 a. Federal Fourth Amendment In addressing the defendant's claim of federal Fourth Amendment violations, we note that Fourth Amendment rights ......
  • Edwards v. State, No. 49S02-0705-CR-202.
    • United States
    • Indiana Supreme Court of Indiana
    • March 17, 2009
    ...722 N.E.2d 828, 832 (Ind.2000) ("[O]nce counsel [i]s appointed, [a d]efendant sp[eaks] to the court through counsel."); Vance v. State, 620 N.E.2d 687, 689 (Ind. 1993) (when a defendant is represented by counsel, it is within the trial court's discretion to entertain or strike pro se motion......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
32 cases
  • Burris v. Parke, No. 3:95-CV-0917 AS.
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 7th Circuit. United States District Court of Northern District of Indiana
    • December 26, 1996
    ...35-42-1-1(2). Under Indiana law, specific intent to kill need not be proved to convict a defendant of felony murder. See Vance v. State, 620 N.E.2d 687, 690 (Ind.1993) (finding that "while the crime of murder does require specific intent to kill, the crime of felony murder, for which appell......
  • Harrison v. State, No. 65S00-9105-DP-380
    • United States
    • Indiana Supreme Court of Indiana
    • January 4, 1995
    ...intent is an essential element constituting the crime of Murder in Indiana. Ind.Code § 35-42-1-1(1) (1988); Vance v. State (1993), Ind., 620 N.E.2d 687, 690; Abdul-Wadood v. State (1988), Ind., 521 N.E.2d 1299, 1300, reh'g denied. "[T]he Due Process Clause [of the Fourteenth Amendment] prot......
  • Peterson v. State, No. 45S00-9103-DP-223
    • United States
    • Indiana Supreme Court of Indiana
    • December 13, 1996
    ...substantial evidence to the contrary to determine whether there is sufficient evidence to support the ruling. See Vance v. State, 620 N.E.2d 687, 691 a. Federal Fourth Amendment In addressing the defendant's claim of federal Fourth Amendment violations, we note that Fourth Amendment rights ......
  • Edwards v. State, No. 49S02-0705-CR-202.
    • United States
    • Indiana Supreme Court of Indiana
    • March 17, 2009
    ...722 N.E.2d 828, 832 (Ind.2000) ("[O]nce counsel [i]s appointed, [a d]efendant sp[eaks] to the court through counsel."); Vance v. State, 620 N.E.2d 687, 689 (Ind. 1993) (when a defendant is represented by counsel, it is within the trial court's discretion to entertain or strike pro se motion......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT