ILNews

Burglary conviction was impermissible double jeopardy

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

Because some of the facts establishing the elements of a Class A felony burglary conviction also established all of the essential elements of the Class B felony burglary conviction, the Indiana Court of Appeals ordered one conviction be vacated due to double jeopardy.

In Shamir Chappell v. State of Indiana, No. 89A01-1106-CR-265, Shamir Chappell helped Carlotta Wilkerson break into the home where Maurice and Heather Jones lived. Maurice Jones was in a relationship with Wilkerson despite being married. The Joneses were staying at the home in order to remove the remainder of Maurice Jones’ sister’s belongings before her eviction date. During the break-in, Wilkerson stabbed Heather Jones twice, and Chappell tried to punch Maurice Jones.

Chappell was convicted of aiding, inducing or causing: Class A felony burglary resulting in bodily injury, Class B felony burglary of a dwelling, and Class C felony battery. He was also convicted of Class D felony residential entry. He admitted to being a habitual offender and was sentenced to an aggregate term of 70 years.

The Court of Appeals found the state presented sufficient evidence to support his convictions of burglary, but that the Class B felony conviction should be vacated due to double jeopardy. He was convicted of both the Class A and Class B felonies for one act of breaking and entering into the home. In addition, the only actual evidence differentiating the two convictions was the element of bodily injury to Heather Jones, wrote Judge Paul Mathias.

The COA remanded with instructions to vacate the sentence for the Class B felony conviction, which the trial court had ordered be served concurrently with the Class A felony conviction. They also found that the aggregate sentence of 70 years is not inappropriate.

 

ADVERTISEMENT

Post a comment to this story

COMMENTS POLICY
We reserve the right to remove any post that we feel is obscene, profane, vulgar, racist, sexually explicit, abusive, or hateful.
 
You are legally responsible for what you post and your anonymity is not guaranteed.
 
Posts that insult, defame, threaten, harass or abuse other readers or people mentioned in Indiana Lawyer editorial content are also subject to removal. Please respect the privacy of individuals and refrain from posting personal information.
 
No solicitations, spamming or advertisements are allowed. Readers may post links to other informational websites that are relevant to the topic at hand, but please do not link to objectionable material.
 
We may remove messages that are unrelated to the topic, encourage illegal activity, use all capital letters or are unreadable.
 

Messages that are flagged by readers as objectionable will be reviewed and may or may not be removed. Please do not flag a post simply because you disagree with it.

Sponsored by

facebook - twitter on Facebook & Twitter

Indiana State Bar Association

Indianapolis Bar Association

Evansville Bar Association

Allen County Bar Association

Indiana Lawyer on Facebook

facebook
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. Such things are no more elections than those in the late, unlamented Soviet Union.

  2. It appears the police and prosecutors are allowed to change the rules halfway through the game to suit themselves. I am surprised that the congress has not yet eliminated the right to a trial in cases involving any type of forensic evidence. That would suit their foolish law and order police state views. I say we eliminate the statute of limitations for crimes committed by members of congress and other government employees. Of course they would never do that. They are all corrupt cowards!!!

  3. Poor Judge Brown probably thought that by slavishly serving the godz of the age her violations of 18th century concepts like due process and the rule of law would be overlooked. Mayhaps she was merely a Judge ahead of her time?

  4. in a lawyer discipline case Judge Brown, now removed, was presiding over a hearing about a lawyer accused of the supposedly heinous ethical violation of saying the words "Illegal immigrant." (IN re Barker) http://www.in.gov/judiciary/files/order-discipline-2013-55S00-1008-DI-429.pdf .... I wonder if when we compare the egregious violations of due process by Judge Brown, to her chiding of another lawyer for politically incorrectness, if there are any conclusions to be drawn about what kind of person, what kind of judge, what kind of apparatchik, is busy implementing the agenda of political correctness and making off-limits legit advocacy about an adverse party in a suit whose illegal alien status is relevant? I am just asking the question, the reader can make own conclsuion. Oh wait-- did I use the wrong adjective-- let me rephrase that, um undocumented alien?

  5. of course the bigger questions of whether or not the people want to pay for ANY bussing is off limits, due to the Supreme Court protecting the people from DEMOCRACY. Several decades hence from desegregation and bussing plans and we STILL need to be taking all this taxpayer money to combat mostly-imagined "discrimination" in the most obviously failed social program of the postwar period.

ADVERTISEMENT