ILNews

COA vacates conviction on double jeopardy grounds

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

The Indiana Court of Appeals has ruled that a man who helped participate in a robbery that left the victim blind must be cleared of a criminal confinement conviction because the same evidence may have been used to convict him on another charge.

In Carlton Wright v. State of Indiana, No. 10A01-1009-CR-517, Carlton Wright appealed his convictions of Class A felony robbery and Class D felony criminal confinement, and claimed his sentence is inappropriate. The court held that the aggregate sentence of 50 years – the maximum sentence for his robbery conviction – was not inappropriate, given Wright’s criminal background and events surrounding the crime that reflect poorly on his character.

On December 24, 2009, Reinaldo Santiago encountered Wright and Kianna Ball at a Clarksville hotel. Santiago agreed to give the two a ride. After stopping to buy alcohol and withdraw cash from an automatic teller machine, Santiago – who spoke little English – drove Wright and Ball to a friend’s house to find someone to serve as translator.

When Santiago parked his van at his friend’s house, Ball pulled out a gun and pointed it at Santiago’s head, and Wright grabbed him to prevent him from moving. Wright then got out of the passenger seat and walked around to the driver’s side. Ball shot Santiago in the head, and Wright pulled him from the van, took the driver’s seat and drove away. Witnesses obtained medical assistance for Santiago, who was permanently blinded due to his injuries.

Police apprehended Wright later, shooting him in the buttock as he attempted to flee. The state charged Wright with robbery, resisting law enforcement, and criminal confinement as a Class B felony. The jury found Wright guilty of robbery and resisting law enforcement as charged, but convicted him of criminal confinement as a Class D felony.

The appeals court cited the state’s closing remarks at trial as support for Wright’s argument that the jury could reasonably infer that the same force he used to confine Santiago could also be the same force used in committing the robbery. The appeals court therefore remanded to the trial court to vacate the conviction for criminal confinement, citing Indiana’s double jeopardy standards. Wright did not appeal his convictions on other charges, but argued his sentence was inappropriate, as he was an accomplice to the shooting.

Citing Merriweather v. State, 778 N.E.2d 449, 458-59 (Ind. Ct. App. 2002), the appeals court ruled that a defendant is criminally liable for the use of a weapon by an accomplice, even if the defendant was not armed. The court held that Wright made no effort to protest Ball shooting Santiago, and that he did not seek medical treatment for the victim, or cooperate with police.

Wright was initially sentenced to serve his conviction for criminal confinement concurrently with the robbery sentence, so the court’s reversal of the criminal confinement conviction does not affect Wright’s overall incarceration.

 

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
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. I gave tempparry guardship to a friend of my granddaughter in 2012. I went to prison. I had custody. My daughter went to prison to. We are out. My daughter gave me custody but can get her back. She was not order to give me custody . but now we want granddaughter back from friend. She's 14 now. What rights do we have

  2. This sure is not what most who value good governance consider the Rule of Law to entail: "In a letter dated March 2, which Brizzi forwarded to IBJ, the commission dismissed the grievance “on grounds that there is not reasonable cause to believe that you are guilty of misconduct.”" Yet two month later reasonable cause does exist? (Or is the commission forging ahead, the need for reasonable belief be damned? -- A seeming violation of the Rules of Profession Ethics on the part of the commission) Could the rule of law theory cause one to believe that an explanation is in order? Could it be that Hoosier attorneys live under Imperial Law (which is also a t-word that rhymes with infamy) in which the Platonic guardians can do no wrong and never owe the plebeian class any explanation for their powerful actions. (Might makes it right?) Could this be a case of politics directing the commission, as celebrated IU Mauer Professor (the late) Patrick Baude warned was happening 20 years ago in his controversial (whisteblowing) ethics lecture on a quite similar topic: http://www.repository.law.indiana.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1498&context=ilj

  3. I have a case presently pending cert review before the SCOTUS that reveals just how Indiana regulates the bar. I have been denied licensure for life for holding the wrong views and questioning the grand inquisitors as to their duties as to state and federal constitutional due process. True story: https://www.scribd.com/doc/299040839/2016Petitionforcert-to-SCOTUS Shorter, Amici brief serving to frame issue as misuse of govt licensure: https://www.scribd.com/doc/312841269/Thomas-More-Society-Amicus-Brown-v-Ind-Bd-of-Law-Examiners

  4. Here's an idea...how about we MORE heavily regulate the law schools to reduce the surplus of graduates, driving starting salaries up for those new grads, so that we can all pay our insane amount of student loans off in a reasonable amount of time and then be able to afford to do pro bono & low-fee work? I've got friends in other industries, radiology for example, and their schools accept a very limited number of students so there will never be a glut of new grads and everyone's pay stays high. For example, my radiologist friend's school accepted just six new students per year.

  5. I totally agree with John Smith.

ADVERTISEMENT