Williams v. State
| Decision Date | 17 December 2015 |
| Docket Number | No. 20A04–1505–CR–406.,20A04–1505–CR–406. |
| Parties | Montrail WILLIAMS, Appellant–Defendant, v. STATE of Indiana, Appellee–Plaintiff. |
| Court | Indiana Appellate Court |
Donald R. Shuler, Barkes, Kolbus, Rife & Shuler, LLP, Goshen, IN, Attorney for Appellant.
Gregory F. Zoeller, Attorney General of Indiana, Michael Gene Worden, Deputy Attorney General, Indianapolis, IN, Attorneys for Appellee.
[1] Appellant–Defendant Montrail Williams, together with four other individuals, planned a burglary, which they completed on the morning of November 4, 2013. During the commission of the burglary, Williams and his cohorts entered the victims' residence, forced two of the victims to kneel on the ground at gunpoint, tied another to a chair, and took property belonging to the victims. Williams was subsequently convicted of Class C felony robbery, Class B felony burglary, Class C felony criminal confinement, Class B felony conspiracy to commit burglary, and Class B felony possession of a firearm by a serious violent felon. He was sentenced to an aggregate term of sixty-eight years, with fifty-five years executed and thirteen years suspended to probation.
[2] On appeal, Williams contends that the evidence is insufficient to sustain his convictions, that his convictions for burglary and conspiracy to commit burglary violate the prohibitions against double jeopardy, and that his sentence is inappropriate. We affirm.
[3] In November of 2013, Cynthia Contreras lived in a mobile home in Goshen with her husband, Jose; her daughter, Brenda Fernandez; and her daughter-inlaw, Thaly Silvestre. Three minor children also lived in the mobile home.
[4] On the morning of November 4, 2013, Contreras's husband left for work at approximately 5:20. After Contreras's husband left for work, Williams, Antoine McDuffie, Davon Crenshaw, and Armando Gonzalez, Jr. acted on an agreement to break into the mobile home. Upon breaking into the mobile home, the men concealed their identities by wearing “hoodie[s]”, masks on their faces, and gloves on their hands. Tr. p. 361. They were armed with at least three guns and carried flashlights. At the time of the break-in, the mobile home was occupied by Contreras, Fernandez, and the three children. Silvestre, who was pregnant, arrived home during the break-in.
[5] The men forced Contreras and Fernandez to kneel down at gunpoint. The men asked Contreras for “gold and dope.” Tr. p. 362. When Contreras indicated that the women did not have any gold or dope the men got upset and told Contreras that they thought she was lying. At some point, the men tied up Silvestre, who was approximately seven months pregnant. The men also threatened to kill everyone in the trailer if anyone called the police. The women were all scared for their safety as well as the safety of the children.
[6] Upon leaving the mobile home, the men stole an X–Box gaming system, a few X–Box games, $350.00 from Contreras's purse, and Contreras's pain medication. Once certain the men were gone, Silvestre freed herself. Sometime later, the women called the police.
[7] Fernandez subsequently told the police that she thought she recognized the voice of one of the intruders as Gonzalez, the boyfriend of someone with whom she worked. Fernandez identified where her co-worker lived with Gonzalez. Fernandez also informed police that she had previously seen Gonzalez with Crenshaw.
[8] When members of the Goshen Police Department arrived at the apartment identified by Fernandez, they encountered Williams, Crenshaw, and Matthew Allen. The police were eventually allowed inside the apartment and, after receiving a search warrant, recovered the X–Box gaming system, the X–Box games, and a pill bottle containing pills. Officers also recovered two bags containing a bandana, gloves, dark clothing, a ski mask, and three loaded handguns. Williams's DNA was subsequently recovered from the ski mask.
[9] Police later encountered McDuffie, who was carrying a flashlight and whose shoes matched the shoe pattern found at the crime scene. When questioned about the robbery, McDuffie stated, “Man, I just drove.” Tr. p. 159. McDuffie indicated to the investigating officer that he, Crenshaw, Williams, and Gonzalez planned and committed the burglary and robbery. Gonzalez subsequently admitted to participating in the burglary and robbery.
[10] In addition, at trial, Allen testified that he and the other men had been “hanging out” at Gonzalez's apartment drinking and smoking marijuana on the night before the crime was committed. Tr. p. 838. Allen further testified that while drinking and smoking marijuana, he had heard Gonzalez, McDuffie, and the other men talk about breaking into and robbing a home. Allen also observed the men passing around three handguns. Allen later observed the men dress in dark jackets and hooded sweatshirts and leave the apartment at approximately 4:30 a.m. on November 4, 2013.
[11] On November 12, 2013, Appellee–Plaintiff the State of Indiana (the “State”) charged Williams with Count I, Class B felony robbery while armed with a deadly weapon; Count II, Class B felony burglary; Count III, Class B felony criminal confinement; Count IV, Class B felony conspiracy to commit burglary; and Count V, Class B felony unlawful possession of a firearm by a serious violent felon. Williams's jury trial began on February 2, 2015, after which the jury found Williams guilty of Counts I through IV. Williams waived his right to a jury trial on Count V. On March 2, 2015, the trial court found Williams guilty of Count V.
[12] On April 16, 2015, Williams filed a petition asking the trial court to reconsider its guilty finding on Count V. The trial court subsequently denied Williams's petition. The trial court also entered an amended judgment, reducing Williams's convictions in Counts I and III from Class B felonies to Class C felonies. The amended judgment reflected that Williams was convicted of Count I, Class C felony robbery; Count II, Class B felony burglary; Count III, Class C felony Criminal Confinement; Count IV, Class B felony conspiracy to commit burglary; and Count V, Class B felony unlawful possession of a firearm by a serious violent offender.
[13] In sentencing Williams, the trial court found the following mitigating factors: Williams's age, the statements made by Williams and Williams's counsel, and Williams's good conduct during the course of the trial in relation to one of Williams's co-defendants. The trial court also found the following aggravating factors: Williams's criminal history; the unsuccessful nature of prior attempts to rehabilitate Williams; the fact that there were multiple crimes committed by multiple perpetrators against multiple victims, one of the victims was pregnant, and three of the victims were children; and Williams is considered a high risk to reoffend. Finding that the aggravating factors outweighed the mitigating factors, the trial court imposed the following sentence: Count I, eight years, with seven years executed and one year suspended to probation; Count II, twenty years, with sixteen years executed and four years suspended to probation; Count III, eight years, with seven years executed and one year suspended to probation; Count IV, twenty years, with sixteen years executed and four years suspended to probation; and Count V, twenty years, with sixteen years executed and four years suspended to probation. The trial court ordered that the sentences for each count should run consecutively for an aggregate sentence of sixty-eight years, with fifty-five years executed and thirteen years suspended to probation. The trial court also ordered that Williams's sentence in the instant matter should be served consecutively to Williams's sentence in Cause Number 20D02–1010–FB–25, for which Williams had been on probation when he committed the underlying offenses. This appeal follows.
[14] Williams contends that the evidence is insufficient to sustain his convictions for robbery, burglary, criminal confinement, conspiracy to commit burglary, and unlawful possession of a firearm by a serious violent felon.
When reviewing the sufficiency of the evidence to support a conviction, appellate courts must consider only the probative evidence and reasonable inferences supporting the verdict. It is the fact-finder's role, not that of appellate courts, to assess witness credibility and weigh the evidence to determine whether it is sufficient to support a conviction. To preserve this structure, when appellate courts are confronted with conflicting evidence, they must consider it most favorably to the trial court's ruling. Appellate courts affirm the conviction unless no reasonable factfinder could find the elements of the crime proven beyond a reasonable doubt. It is therefore not necessary that the evidence overcome every reasonable hypothesis of innocence. The evidence is sufficient if an inference may reasonably be drawn from it to support the verdict.
Drane v. State, 867 N.E.2d 144, 146–47 (Ind.2007) (citations, emphasis, and quotations omitted). “In essence, we assess only whether the verdict could be reached based on reasonable inferences that may be drawn from the evidence presented.” Baker v. State, 968 N.E.2d 227, 229 (Ind.2012) (emphasis in original). Upon review, appellate courts do not reweigh the evidence or assess the credibility of the witnesses, Stewart v. State, 768 N.E.2d 433, 435 (Ind.2002), as the jury, acting as the trier-of-fact, is “Tree to believe whomever they wish.' “ Klaff v. State, 884 N .E.2d 272, 274 (Ind.Ct.App.2008) (quoting McClendon v. State, 671 N.E.2d 486, 488 (Ind.Ct.App.1996) ).
[15] “[A] conviction may be based purely on circumstantial evidence.” Hayes v. State, 876 N.E.2d 373, 375 (Ind.Ct.App.2007) (citing Moore v. State, 652 N.E.2d 53, 55 (Ind.1995) ), trans. denied. “ ‘On appeal, the circumstantial evidence need...
To continue reading
Request your trial