Williams v. State
| Decision Date | 06 August 2008 |
| Docket Number | No. 39A04-0708-CR-481.,39A04-0708-CR-481. |
| Citation | 891 N.E.2d 621 |
| Court | Indiana Appellate Court |
| Parties | Gary L. WILLIAMS, Jr., Appellant-Defendant, v. STATE of Indiana, Appellee-Plaintiff. |
Steve Carter, Attorney General of Indiana, Zachary J. Stock, Deputy Attorney General, Indianapolis, IN, Attorneys for Appellee.
Gary L. Williams, Jr. appeals his convictions and sentence on two counts of Dealing in Cocaine, as Class A felonies; one count of Possession of Cocaine, as a Class A felony; two counts of Possession of Cocaine, as Class C felonies; and one count of Possession of Marijuana, as a Class D felony. Williams raises eight issues for our review, which we restate as follows:
1. Whether Williams is entitled to the return of his bond premium.
2. Whether the trial court abused its discretion in denying Williams' motion to continue trial two days before trial was scheduled to begin.
3. Whether the court erred in not granting Williams' motion for a mistrial after a juror disclosed to the court that she had a friendly relationship with a witness.
4. Whether the court abused its discretion when it admitted evidence obtained from two drug buys between an informant for the State and Williams, as well as firearms and cash found in Williams' home, pursuant to a search warrant.
5. Whether the court improperly denied Williams' tendered jury instructions.
6. Whether the court erred in imposing consecutive sentences.
7. Whether the court denied Williams his Sixth Amendment rights as recognized in Blakely v. Washington, 542 U.S. 296 [124 S.Ct. 2531, 159 L.Ed.2d 403] (2004).
8. Whether his sentence is inappropriate in light of the nature of his offenses and his character.
We affirm in part and reverse in part.
On October 1, 2002, Indiana State Police ("ISP") officers arrested William Butters, a video rental store owner in Hanover. Detective Grant Martin informed Butters that Butters was facing at least eleven criminal charges related to dealing in cocaine. After further discussion, the officers informed Butters that he could serve as a confidential informant to "help [him]self and try to get out of this mess." Transcript at 213. Butters agreed.
Butters told the ISP officers that he had been purchasing drugs from Williams. The officers instructed Butters to arrange a drug buy with Williams, which Butters did via a recorded telephone call. Butters arranged to purchase an ounce of cocaine from Williams. Before meeting with Williams, the ISP officers searched Butters and his car, fitted him with a recording device, and supplied him with $1,250 in cash with serial numbers that had been recorded.
Butters drove directly from the police station to Williams' residence, followed by ISP officers. Williams let Butters into the home, where two other men were present. The ISP officers were able to maintain visual contact with the front of the home and received audio transmissions from inside the home, which they recorded. Williams retrieved the cocaine from a safe inside the home and, using a knife and hammer, chiseled off two ounces of cocaine for Butters. Although Butters only had cash to pay for one ounce, Williams "front[ed]" the second ounce to Butters so they "wouldn't have to keep doing business so often." Id. at 227. Butters gave Williams the money Butters had received from the ISP officers, with the expectation that Butters would pay Williams for the second ounce of cocaine at a later date. Butters then left Williams' home.
Following the transaction, Butters immediately met with ISP officers. His car and person were again searched, the officers removed the recording device, and they confiscated the cocaine. Detective Martin then told Butters to meet with officers the next day to arrange another cocaine buy with Williams.
On October 2, Butters again met with ISP officers. His person and vehicle were searched and he was fitted with another recording device. Butters then arranged another meeting with Williams at Williams' residence, and, using $1,450 in cash given to him by the police, with recorded serial numbers, Butters paid for the "fronted" amount of cocaine. Id. at 255. Williams agreed to "front" Butters two more ounces of cocaine. See id. During the transaction, ISP officers maintained visual contact with the front of Williams' home and recorded the audio transmissions from the device attached to Butters.
After the second transaction was completed, Butters left Williams' home and met with police. Butters and his vehicle were searched, the recording device was removed, and the cocaine was confiscated. The ISP officers then instructed Butters to return to his home.
On October 3, at 5:00 a.m., ISP officers executed a search warrant for Williams' residence. During the search, the officers discovered several bags of marijuana and cocaine, and more than $20,000 in cash. Some of the cash, $320, was identified by the police as money provided to Butters. Various firearms were also discovered and seized. Williams and another person were arrested at the scene. The State charged Williams with nine counts.
On January 22, 2003, Williams posted a $100,000 appearance bond through American Surety Company ("ASC") after having paid a $10,000 premium. In June of 2003, ASC filed a petition for release of the bond alleging that Williams had violated the terms of his agreement with ASC. Specifically, ASC argued that Williams changed his address without notifying ASC and that Williams had been rearrested on a previous bond in another court. The court granted ASC's request in April of 2004 and, in June of that year, denied Williams' cross-motion for a return of the $10,000 premium.
Between October of 2002 and October of 2006, Williams was represented by six different trial lawyers. In October of 2006, the court appointed Williams' eventual trial counsel. On January 3, 2007, the court scheduled Williams' trial for April 11, 2007, expressly stating that "[n]o continuances will be granted." Appellant's App. at 300. Nonetheless, on March 26, 2007, Williams' trial counsel moved for a continuance, alleging, without specification, a need for more time to prepare an adequate defense. The court denied that motion. On April 9, 2007, two days before trial was scheduled to begin, Williams' counsel again moved for a continuance, specifically requesting more time to investigate whether "a Supervisor of the [ISP] Drug Enforcement Unit involved in this investigation has a background so dubious that the integrity of the entire investigation, and therefore the State's case against Mr. Williams, may be in question" ("April 9 Continuance Request"). Id. at 322. The court denied the motion.
On the first day of Williams' trial, Williams filed a motion to suppress all evidence from the two "controlled buys" and all evidence seized during the execution of the search warrant. Id. at 336. Williams also filed several motions in limine concerning the State's evidence. And Williams' counsel renewed his motion for a continuance. The trial court denied all of those motions. During the trial, Williams' counsel renewed his objections to the admission of the audio recordings from each buy, the firearms, and the cash seized from his home, but the court overruled those objections.
Butters testified at Williams' trial. Without objection, Butters described each of the two cocaine buys at Williams' house.1 At the conclusion of Butters' testimony, one of the jurors submitted the following handwritten letter to the trial court:
Your Honor,
I apologize. I did not realize at the time, but I do know Bill (Butters). I haven't seen him in years. He was a family friend of my parents [and] used to bartend private parties for my parents, Jim [and] Nancy Sedam. I was a patron of his video store [and] was on a friendly basis w/him.
Id. at 361. Upon receiving the juror's letter, the court questioned the juror in the presence of counsel and outside the presence of the other jurors. During that questioning, the following exchange took place:
D.J. MOTE [for the State]: Is there anything about your prior relationship with Mr. Butters that's going to make you believe him more or less?
Transcript at 274-75, 277-78. Following that discussion, Williams moved for a mistrial. Instead, however, the court ordered the juror to serve as the alternate juror. The court then admonished all the jurors not to "ask any questions from anybody about why we switched [juror] number five with the alternate." Id. at 285.
On the second and third days of trial, Williams failed to appear. His counsel moved for a continuance, which the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Hussein
...mandated reasons to justify consecutive sentencing"). Others have done so by judicial determination See, e.g., Williams v. State, 891 N.E.2d 621, 630 (Ind.Ct.App.2008) (holding that "a trial court is required to state its reasons for imposing consecutive sentences or enhanced terms"); State......
-
State v. Hussein, No. 28617 (Hawaii 4/21/2010)
...mandated reasons to justify consecutive sentencing"). Others have done so by judicial determination See, e.g., Williams v. State, 891 N.E.2d 621, 630 (Ind. Ct. App. 2008) (holding that "[a] trial court is required to state its reasons for imposing consecutive sentences or enhanced terms"); ......
-
State v. Provenzino
...a criminal history as one aggravating factor, whether that history contains one prior felony or several. See, e.g., Williams v. State, 891 N.E.2d 621, 632-33 (Ind.App.2008) and Henyard v. McDonough, 459 F.3d 1217, 1232 (11th Cir.). However, in none of these cases did a court expressly hold ......
- Barnett v. State