Pursuant to Ind.Appellate Rule 65(D), this
Memorandum Decision shall not be
regarded as precedent or cited before any Oct 23 2014, 9:21 am
court except for the purpose of establishing
the defense of res judicata, collateral
estoppel, or the law of the case.
ATTORNEY FOR APPELLANT: ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE:
RONALD J. MOORE GREGORY F. ZOELLER
Richmond, Indiana Attorney General of Indiana
IAN McLEAN
Deputy Attorney General
Indianapolis, Indiana
IN THE
COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA
JONATHAN GRAY, )
)
Appellant-Defendant, )
)
vs. ) No. 89A01-1309-CR-443
)
STATE OF INDIANA, )
)
Appellee-Plaintiff. )
APPEAL FROM THE WAYNE SUPERIOR COURT
The Honorable Charles K. Todd, Jr., Judge
Cause No. 89D01-1203-MR-3
October 23, 2014
MEMORANDUM DECISION – NOT FOR PUBLICATION
RILEY, Judge
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellant-Defendant, Jonathan R. Gray (Gray), appeals his conviction of felony
murder, Ind. Code § 35-42-1-1(2); conspiracy to commit robbery resulting in serious bodily
injury, a Class A felony, I.C. §§ 35-41-5-2(a), -42-5-1(1); and conspiracy to commit
robbery while armed with a deadly weapon, a Class B felony, I.C. §§ 35-41-5-2(a), -42-5-
1(1).
We affirm.
ISSUES
Gray raises two issues on appeal, which we restate as the following three issues:
(1) Whether the State committed prosecutorial misconduct;
(2) Whether the trial court abused its discretion in sentencing Gray; and
(3) Whether the trial court violated Gray’s Sixth Amendment right to a trial.
FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY
On the afternoon of March 19, 2012, Gray and his four co-defendants—Robert
Campbell (Campbell), Matthew Allen (Allen), David Lady, Jr. (Lady), and Montell
Westfall (Westfall)—congregated at Gray’s residence on Sheridan Street in Richmond,
Indiana. Initially, the cohorts were tinkering with their motorized scooters, talking, and
goofing off in the alley behind Gray’s house. At some point however, Campbell began
pacing up and down the alley as he exchanged a series of heated phone calls. When
Campbell rejoined the group, he explained that his acquaintance, Michael Sekse (Sekse),
would be coming over under the pretense that there was a large quantity of marijuana for
2
sale, stored in Gray’s shed. As Campbell had previously sold marijuana to Sekse, he knew
that Sekse would have a substantial sum of cash in his possession, and he requested that
Gray, Allen, Lady, and Westfall assist him in robbing Sekse of his money. In exchange
for their involvement, Campbell promised to give them $1,000 each. Gray and the three
other co-defendants all agreed to participate. In preparation, Gray, Allen, and Westfall
armed themselves with knives, and Lady equipped himself with a hatchet he found in
Gray’s shed.
As planned, when Sekse arrived, he followed Campbell and the others into the
small, cluttered shed for the purpose of inspecting the marijuana. Once inside the shed,
Sekse was ambushed. Gray and his co-defendants stabbed Sekse in the back, chest, and
abdomen and cut the side of his head. As indicated by the stab wounds on his arms, Sekse
struggled to fight off his attackers, but Campbell withdrew a handgun from his waistband
and shot Sekse in the head. After falling to the ground, Sekse’s labored breathing produced
a “snoring” sound, which prompted Gray to repeatedly slit his throat. (Transcript p. 514).
Campbell and Gray then dragged Sekse’s body to the back of the shed and covered him
with a plastic garden pond liner. Westfall and Lady grabbed Sekse’s bundle of money and
fled on foot to Lady’s house—the designated meeting point. When Allen and Campbell
arrived soon thereafter, Campbell counted and disbursed the cash. The robbery yielded
approximately $11,000, of which Campbell awarded $1,000 each to Allen, Lady, and
Westfall as promised. A short time later, Campbell and Gray crossed paths in the alley,
where Campbell paid Gray his $1,000 share, keeping the remaining $7,000 for himself.
3
That evening, concerned that Sekse had not come home, Sekse’s family commenced
a search. Sekse’s wife knew that he had made plans to meet Campbell and that he was
carrying a large sum of money. After a family member detected Sekse’s black pickup truck
parked in a backyard on Sheridan Street, Sekse’s wife drove over and knocked on Gray’s
door. Gray answered, but he denied knowing either Campbell or Sekse. Returning to the
abandoned pickup truck, Sekse’s wife observed that it had been ransacked, the windows
were open, and the key was still in the ignition. Moreover, the paper towels that Sekse had
used to wrap his money were scattered over the floorboards. Sekse’s wife reported her
husband’s disappearance to the Richmond Police Department.
On March 20, 2012, after obtaining additional information from the neighbors,
police officers secured a warrant to search Gray’s shed, where they discovered Sekse’s
body, along with the discarded knives, hatchet, and shell casings that had been used in his
murder. On March 28, 2012, the State filed an amended Information, charging Gray with
Count I, felony murder, I.C. § 35-42-1-1(2); Count II, felony murder, I.C. §§ 35-41-2-4, -
42-1-1(2); Count III, robbery, a Class A felony, I.C. § 35-42-5-1(1); Count IV, robbery, a
Class A felony, I.C. §§ 35-41-2-4, -42-5-1(1); Count V, robbery, a Class B felony, I.C. §
35-42-5-1(1); Count VI, robbery, a Class B felony, I.C. §§ 35-41-2-4, -42-5-1(1); Count
VII, conspiracy to commit robbery, a Class A felony, I.C. §§ 35-41-5-2(a), -42-5-1(1);
Count VIII, conspiracy to commit robbery, a Class A felony, I.C. §§§ 35-41-2-4, -41-5-
2(a), -42-5-1(1); Count IX, conspiracy to commit robbery, a Class B felony, I.C. §§ 35-41-
4
5-2(a), -42-5-1(1); Count X, aggravated battery, a Class B felony, I.C. § 35-42-2-1.5; and
Count XI, assisting a criminal, a Class C felony, I.C. § 35-44-3-2(a)(2).1
On August 5, 2013, a four-day jury trial commenced. On August 8, 2013, at the
close of the evidence, the jury returned a verdict of guilty as to all eleven Counts, and the
trial court entered a judgment of conviction on the same. On September 6, 2013, the trial
court conducted a sentencing hearing and vacated Gray’s conviction as to Counts II, III,
IV, V, VI, VIII, X, and XI. Thereafter, the trial court imposed a sentence of sixty years for
Count I, felony murder; thirty years for Count VII, conspiracy to commit robbery resulting
in serious bodily injury as a Class A felony; and ten years for Count IX, conspiracy to
commit robbery while armed with a deadly weapon as a Class B felony. The trial court
ordered that the sentences on Count VII and Count IX run concurrently, but consecutive to
the sentence on Count I, resulting in an aggregate term of ninety years, executed in the
Indiana Department of Correction.
Gray now appeals. Additional facts will be provided as necessary.
DISCUSSION AND DECISION
I. Prosecutorial Misconduct
Gray claims that the State engaged in various acts of prosecutorial misconduct for
which he is entitled to a retrial. In particular, Gray points to several remarks made by the
prosecutor during his opening statement and closing argument, as well as to the
prosecutor’s repeated characterization of the matter as a “murder trial.” (Appellant’s Br.
1
Indiana Code section 35-44-3-2 was repealed effective June 30, 2012. The crime of assisting a criminal
is now codified at Indiana Code section 35-44.1-2-5.
5
p. 15). When reviewing a claim of prosecutorial misconduct, our court must first decide
whether the prosecutor’s conduct was, in fact, improper. Stephens v. State, 10 N.E.3d 599,
605 (Ind. Ct. App. 2014). If we find that the prosecutor engaged in misconduct, our
analysis turns on whether, under all of the circumstances, the misconduct “placed the
defendant in a position of grave peril to which he or she would not have been subjected.”
Cooper v. State, 854 N.E.2d 831, 835 (Ind. 2006). We look to case law and the Rules of
Professional Conduct to assess whether a prosecutor’s argument constitutes misconduct.
Id. Then, in determining whether the prosecutor’s conduct placed the defendant in grave
peril, we consider the probable persuasive effect of the misconduct on the verdict.
Stephens, 10 N.E.3d at 605.
In order to preserve a claim of prosecutorial misconduct for appeal, a defendant
must raise a contemporaneous objection and request an admonishment at the time the
alleged misconduct occurs. Ryan v. State, 9 N.E.3d 663, 667 (Ind. 2014). If the
admonishment is insufficient to cure the error, or no admonishment is given, the defendant
must then request a mistrial. Bass v. State, 947 N.E.2d 456, 461 (Ind. Ct. App. 2011),
trans. denied. Here, Gray concedes that he did not make timely and specific objections to
the challenged commentary, thereby waiving his claim for appeal. However, even if a
defendant procedurally defaults on a claim of prosecutorial misconduct, appellate review
is not precluded if the misconduct constitutes fundamental error. Booher v. State, 773
N.E.2d 814, 817 (Ind. 2002). In such cases, the defendant is required to establish not only
the grounds for prosecutorial misconduct but also the additional grounds for fundamental
error. Cooper, 854 N.E.2d at 835. Notwithstanding any waiver resulting from his failure
6
to object, Gray insists that he is entitled to a retrial because the State’s misconduct
amounted to fundamental error.
The fundamental error doctrine “is an extremely narrow exception to the waiver rule
where the defendant faces the heavy burden of showing that the alleged errors are so
prejudicial to the defendant’s rights as to ‘make a fair trial impossible.’” Ryan, 9 N.E.3d
at 668 (quoting Benson v. State, 762 N.E.2d 748, 756 (Ind. 2002)). To succeed on a claim
of fundamental error, the defendant must establish that, under the circumstances, the trial
court erred by not raising the issue sua sponte “because the alleged errors (a) ‘constitute
clearly blatant violations of basic and elementary principles of due process’ and (b) ‘present
an undeniable and substantial potential for harm.’” Id. (quoting Benson, 762 N.E.2d at
756).
A. Opening Statement
Gray claims that the prosecutor’s opening statement contained improper
commentary. Specifically, Gray directs our attention to the following remarks:
Campbell needed help. He wasn’t man enough to try to do this by himself,
he had to enlist his little henchmen to get out there and assist him with this.
And so there was some discussion between the five [co-defendants].
****
Now, we’re talking about five co-defendants who were all involved
in this and as co-defendants go, you’ve got to take a close look at their
testimony and I’m going to be the first one to get up here and tell you these
guys are all essentially killers. They’re maybe not killers like you picture on
TV, like everybody has this image of what a killer looks like, a John Wayne
Gacy,[2] or somebody that’s all tattooed up and really muscular, but you know
2
Notorious Chicago serial killer John Wayne Gacy, also known as the “Killer Clown,” was executed by
lethal injection on May 10, 1994, after he was convicted of murdering thirty-three young men between
1972 and 1978. John Wayne Gacy: Murderer (1942-1994), BIOGRAPHY.COM,
http://www.biography.com/people/john-wayne-gacy-10367544#synopsis (last visited Sept. 26, 2014).
7
what, in real life that’s not necessarily what killers look like. Killers look
like [eighteen-year-old] kids and in this situation here the other co-
defendants, . . . and this man, [Gray], again this happened with knives, again,
Mike Sekse was unarmed, wasn’t expecting it, nobody was fighting one on
one, nobody could approach him individually and do this, but these guys had
to collectively gang up on the guy inside of the shed and begin stabbing him.
They stabbed—did—did anybody say, hey, just give us the money and we
won’t stab you? No, nobody even gave this poor guy a chance to say all
right, take the money so I can save my life. They didn’t give him that
opportunity. These little animals jumped on him like a bunch of piranhas.
(Tr. pp. 293, 296 (emphases added)). Without citing to any Rule of Professional Conduct
or supportive case law, Gray asserts that by referring to the co-defendants as Campbell’s
“henchmen”; “likening [Gray] to serial killers and television Hollywood killers”; and
comparing the co-conspirators to piranhas, “the State improperly enflamed the passions of
the jury.” (Appellant’s Br. p. 14). We disagree.
During a trial, a lawyer is prohibited from “assert[ing] personal knowledge of facts
in issue except when testifying as a witness, or stat[ing] a personal opinion as to the justness
of a cause, the credibility of a witness, the culpability of a civil litigant or the guilt or
innocence of an accused.” Ind. Professional Conduct Rule 3.4(e). However, our courts
have previously declined to find misconduct where the prosecutor’s “remarks were fair
commentary on the facts introduced at trial.” Cooper, 854 N.E.2d at 837. We find that the
prosecutor’s description of Gray and three of his co-defendants as “henchmen” in both his
opening and closing statements is a fair characterization of the evidence, which clearly
indicates that Campbell was the kingpin behind the conspiracy. A “henchman” is simply
“a trusted follower or supporter who performs unpleasant, wrong, or illegal tasks for a
powerful person (such as a politician or criminal).” MERRIAM-WEBSTER,
8
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/henchman (last visited Sept. 29, 2014). As
the record demonstrates: Campbell arranged the sham marijuana transaction with Sekse
and lured him to the shed; Campbell offered a financial incentive to his four co-defendants
for their participation; Campbell concealed a handgun in his waistband while his helpers
were armed with knives; Campbell fired the fatal gunshot; Westfall and Lady recovered
the bundle of money, but they left it undisturbed for Campbell to count and distribute; and
although he paid each co-conspirator only $1,000, Campbell retained more than $7,000 of
the robbery proceeds. It is clear from this evidence that Gray, Allen, Lady, and Westfall
were operating at Campbell’s behest; therefore, we find no impropriety in the prosecutor’s
identification of their role as “henchmen.” (Tr. p. 293).
In addition, we do not find the prosecutor’s statements regarding “what killers look
like” and the corresponding references to John Wayne Gacy and murderers depicted on
television to constitute misconduct. (Tr. p. 296). While we do not generally condone the
State’s discussion of notorious serial killers in an opening statement, it is well established
that the prosecutor may reasonably advocate to convince the jury of the defendant’s guilt.
In the case at bar, the prosecutor’s reference did nothing to suggest that Gray or his cohorts
were serial killers or any other “sinister connotation beyond the facts of the case.” Gann
v. State, 550 N.E.2d 73, 76 (Ind. 1990). Rather, we find that the prosecutor’s comment
was an effort to illustrate for the jury that even people who do not outwardly resemble the
stereotypical images of a murderer are capable of committing horrific crimes. See Brennan
v. State, 639 N.E.2d 649, 652 (Ind. 1994) (finding no misconduct in prosecutor’s
admonition to jury to “not let his professor-like looks deceive you, because he is a cold-
9
blooded killer”). Because the State’s case relied, in part, upon the testimony of Allen,
Lady, and Westfall—who were all minors at the time of the murder—it was reasonable for
the prosecutor to prepare the jurors for the fact that they would be hearing gruesome
evidence from very young co-defendants.
As to the prosecutor’s description of Gray and the others as “animals” who attacked
Sekse “like a bunch of piranhas[,]” we find no misconduct. (Tr. p. 296). It is the
prerogative of the prosecuting attorney
to argue the State’s side of the case forcefully and to discuss the evidence
pertinent thereto. We can perceive nothing unfair or prejudicial about
permitting the prosecutor to argue his case in such a manner so long as his
statements are reasonably calculated to sway the jury to the State’s point of
view in light of the evidence adduced at trial, and so long as he makes no
deliberate distortions or improper comments.
Morris v. State, 384 N.E.2d 1022, 1025-26 (Ind. 1979). The evidence presented to the jury
demonstrated that five young men—armed with knives and a handgun—lured an unarmed
and unsuspecting individual into a shed under false pretenses and ambushed him, savagely
murdering him for the sake of $1,000 (in the case of Gray, Allen, Lady, and Westfall).
After killing Sekse and taking his money, Campbell and Gray callously dragged his body
to a corner of the shed and concealed it with junk and other debris. The pathologist who
conducted the autopsy testified that even if Sekse had not sustained the gunshot to the brain,
the fourteen stab wounds, which included the four slits that Gray exacted on Sekse’s throat,
would nevertheless have resulted in death. Accordingly, we find that the prosecutor’s
attempt to sway the jury by analogizing the co-defendants’ conduct to that of piranhas
10
(which are reputed to ferociously attack their prey in packs), though forceful, is neither
unfair nor misleading. See id. at 1026.
B. Characterization of Matter as a “Murder Trial”
Next, Gray claims that the prosecutor’s “consistent use of the term murder”
constituted misconduct. (Appellant’s Br. p. 15). Specifically, Gray argues that he
was not charged with murder. He stands convicted of felony murder for the
death of Mike Sekse which occurred during a conspiracy to commit robbery
as well as conspiracy to commit robbery . . . . The State’s preview of the
evidence here was as if this were a murder trial and the words used by the
prosecutor were an attempt to get the jury thinking about this as a murder
case and not as a felony murder and conspiracy case.
(Appellant’s Br. p. 15). Gray does not cite any case law or other authority to support his
position that his charges of “felony murder” are separate and distinct from the crime of
“murder,” such that the State’s repeated references to “the day of the murder” warrant a
retrial. (Appellant’s Br. p. 17). Again, we disagree.
Contrary to Gray’s unsubstantiated assertion, we find no legal distinction that
precludes characterizing a felony murder as a murder. Felony murder is codified under the
“Murder” section of the Indiana Code, which provides that “[a] person who . . . kills another
human being while committing or attempting to commit . . . robbery . . . commits murder,
a felony.” I.C. § 35-42-1-1(2) (emphasis added). Although the elements to prove a murder
that is committed in the course of another felony differ from those required to prove murder
by a knowing or intentional killing, murder and felony murder are equal in rank. See I.C.
§ 35-42-1-1(1)-(2); Hobson v. State, 675 N.E.2d 1090, 1094 (Ind. 1996).
11
Gray’s argument is even less persuasive in light of the remarks made by defense
counsel during the trial. In the defense’s opening statement, Gray’s attorney stated that
[felony murder is] the one instance when a person can actually be convicted
of murder without having intended to kill someone. [It is] a controversial
theory but it is the law in the State of Indiana. And the end result is the same.
The conviction is the same if you choose to convict someone of felony
murder as it would be to convict him of a murder. Same statute, different
way of getting there.
(Tr. pp. 312-13). Then, during his closing argument, defense counsel again told the jury,
“Don’t be mistaken[,] [felony murder is] every bit as serious a charge, it’s still called
murder, the consequences are still the same, but to get there the State has a different set of
facts that [it] [has] to prove.” (Tr. p. 789). Furthermore, in addition to the fact that both
the prosecutor and defense counsel repeatedly explained the concept of felony murder, the
jury instructions also set forth Gray’s charges for felony murder and clearly identified the
elements that the State was required to prove in order for the jurors to convict. As such,
we find no misconduct in the prosecutor’s references to Sekse’s murder, and because Gray
has not established the grounds for prosecutorial misconduct in any of the prosecutor’s
other remarks, his claim of fundamental error must also fail.
II. Ninety-Year Sentence
Gray claims that the trial court abused its sentencing discretion by ordering that he
serve an executed term of ninety years. The trial court is vested with sound discretion in
matters of sentencing. Anglemyer v. State, 868 N.E.2d 482, 490 (Ind. 2007), clarified on
reh’g. On appeal, we will review sentencing decisions only for an abuse of that discretion.
Id. We will find an abuse of discretion where the trial court’s decision is “clearly against
12
the logic and effect of the facts and circumstances before the court, or the reasonable,
probable, and actual deductions to be drawn therefrom.” Id.
The trial court may impose any sentence authorized by statute. Robertson v. State,
871 N.E.2d 280, 283 (Ind. 2007). In making a sentencing determination, the trial court
may consider any number of aggravating and mitigating factors. I.C. § 35-38-1-7.1.
However, any aggravating and/or mitigating circumstances identified by the trial court
must be supported by the record. Anglemyer, 868 N.E.2d at 490. In addition, in order to
facilitate appellate review, trial courts are required to enter a sentencing statement that
reasonably details the court’s bases for imposing the specific sentence, including its
findings, if any, of aggravating or mitigating circumstances. Id. It is well-settled that “[a]
single aggravating circumstance is sufficient to justify a sentence enhancement.” Anderson
v. State, 961 N.E.2d 19, 33 (Ind. Ct. App. 2012), trans. denied. Moreover, the same valid
aggravator may be used to enhance a sentence and to justify consecutive sentences.
Gleason v. State, 965 N.E.2d 702, 712 (Ind. Ct. App. 2012).
In the present case, for conspiracy to commit robbery as a Class A felony and a
Class B felony, the trial court sentenced Gray to the advisory terms of thirty years and ten
years, respectively, running concurrently. I.C. §§ 35-50-2-4, -5. On the felony murder
charge, the trial court ordered a consecutive, enhanced sentence of sixty years. I.C. § 35-
50-2-3(a). In support of its decision, the trial court identified the following statutory and
non-statutory aggravating circumstances: Gray’s criminal history; his lack of remorse; the
brutal nature of the offense; and Gray’s overall dishonorable character, which includes his
failure to establish paternity to a six-year-old daughter, his unresolved criminal matters in
13
Oklahoma; his habitual drug use, and an absence of gainful employment in his work
history. The trial court explicitly rejected all of the mitigating factors proffered by Gray.
Gray now asserts that the trial court abused its discretion by failing to recognize that
his criminal history consists only of non-violent misdemeanors “and that approximately
four years had elapsed between [his] offenses in Oklahoma and this matter.” (Appellant’s
Br. p. 22). Gray further argues that his non-violent misdemeanor history warrants only
concurrent, advisory sentences, thereby reducing his ninety-year sentence to fifty-five
years. We disagree.
The trial court specifically found, and the record supports, that Gray’s criminal
record consists of three misdemeanor convictions and multiple other arrests. The trial court
acknowledged that Gray’s criminal history
is clearly not the most egregious record that the [c]ourt’s seen, but it’s also
not something to be dismissive about and it is clearly an aggravator in this
cause, especially given [Gray’s] young age—relatively young age. [Gray]
has received previously suspended sentences and also received previous time
to serve, neither of which appear to deter [Gray] from committing criminal
activity which has brought us here today.
(Tr. p. 926). The trial court found it further significant that two of Gray’s misdemeanor
convictions—one for obtaining cash and merchandise by means of a bogus check and the
other for a felony burglary that was ultimately pled down to misdemeanor breaking and
entering—involved victims. Standing alone, the fact that an individual “has a history of
criminal or delinquent behavior” is sufficient to constitute an aggravating circumstance.
I.C. § 35-38-1-7.1(a)(2). We are unpersuaded by Gray’s contentions that the trial court did
not accord sufficient consideration to certain facets of his criminal record because the trial
14
court has no obligation to weigh aggravating or mitigating factors. Kimbrough v. State,
979 N.E.2d 625, 629 (Ind. 2012). Additionally, despite the fact that a trial court is not
required to accept a defendant’s arguments regarding mitigating circumstances, we
nevertheless note that Gray’s allusion to a four-year gap in his criminal activity, which
might favor a mitigated sentence, is wholly unsupported by the record. See I.C. § 35-38-
1-7.1(b)(6); Williams v. State, 997 N.E.2d 1154, 1163 (Ind. Ct. App. 2013). In fact, Gray
continues to have unresolved criminal matters in at least two Oklahoma counties, including
an outstanding warrant for failing to appear in a pending misdemeanor case.
Gray also argues that the trial court erroneously considered the Indiana Risk
Assessment System (IRAS), included in his pre-sentence investigation (PSI) report, as an
aggravating circumstance. During the sentencing hearing, the trial court noted the results
of the IRAS, which identified Gray as very likely to reoffend, but specifically clarified that
it did not consider it as an aggravating factor. However, the trial court subsequently stated
that the IRAS “supports what [it] believe[s] to be the character of [Gray] and his likelihood
for committing future criminal acts.” (Tr. p. 932). “Evidence-based offender assessment
scores are not to be considered aggravating or mitigating factors or determine the gross
length of a sentence.” Williams, 997 N.E.2d at 1165. Thus, if the trial court did, in fact,
rely on the IRAS as a separate aggravating factor, it would be inappropriate. Id.
Notwithstanding the IRAS, we find that the trial court cited ample other uncontested
evidence to support finding Gray’s character to be an aggravating circumstance, including
Gray’s long-term drug use; his proclivity for criminal associations and activity; and his
habitual refusal to take responsibility for his obligations, as evidenced by his unresolved
15
criminal matters, his refusal to establish paternity for a six-year-old child, and his mere
twelve-months of legitimate employment in the course of his lifetime.
Gray also posits that “[i]t seems disingenuous to aggravate a sentence for the nature
of the offense by considering the planning, [Gray’s] role in the plan, and the post-offense
cover up when those are the specific offenses for which the jury found him guilty.”
(Appellant’s Br. pp. 24-25). We recognize that a material element of a crime may not serve
as an aggravating circumstance; however, “the nature and circumstances of the crime can
be an aggravator” so long as the trial court identifies “facts that go beyond the statutory
requirements of the crime.” Gleason, 965 N.E.2d at 711. We find that the trial court
properly decided that Gray’s conduct exceeded the statutory elements of felony murder or
conspiracy to commit robbery. In particular, the trial court found Gray’s culpability in the
conspiracy to be significant, noting that Gray provided knives to his co-defendants, took
“an active role in stabbing [Sekse,]” and that he and Campbell were “primarily responsible
for covering up the gruesome death.” (Tr. p. 935). Therefore, because the trial court
imposed sentences within the statutory regime and identified at least one valid aggravating
circumstance, we find no abuse of discretion in the trial court’s decision to enhance the
felony murder sentence or to order the sentences for felony murder and conspiracy to run
consecutively.3
III. Sixth Amendment Violation
3
Although Gray contends that the trial court abused its discretion by imposing an “inappropriate” sentence
and cites to Indiana Appellate Rule 7(B), he does not develop this argument any further. See Ind. Appellate
Rule 46(A)(8)(a). Because Gray has failed to tender any argument as to why the nature of his offense and
his character merit revision, we decline to disrupt the trial court’s sentence.
16
Lastly, Gray claims that the trial court violated his Sixth Amendment right to a trial
by considering Gray’s outstanding warrant on a pending misdemeanor, as well as a second
warrant based on an alleged probation violation, in its sentencing decision. Indiana Code
section 35-38-1-7.1(a)(6) provides that a trial court may consider an individual’s recent
violation of “the conditions of any probation, parole, pardon, community corrections
placement, or pretrial release” as an aggravating circumstance. During the sentencing
hearing, the trial court expressed that it was considering Gray’s pending Oklahoma
warrants as part of his overall criminal history or as to the fact that he has not led a law-
abiding life; however, in its subsequent sentencing order, the trial court identified the
outstanding Oklahoma warrants as an aggravating factor under Indiana Code section 35-
38-1-7.1(a)(6).
The United States Supreme Court has determined that, with the exception of prior
convictions, any fact that a trial court relies upon to enhance a sentence must have either
been found by a jury beyond a reasonable doubt, admitted to by the defendant, or found by
the sentencing judge after the defendant has waived Apprendi rights and consented to
judicial fact-finding. Robertson, 871 N.E.2d at 286 (citing Blakely v. Washington, 542
U.S. 296, 302 (2004)). To rely upon facts that have not been properly determined by judge
or jury or admitted to by the defendant would infringe upon the defendant’s Sixth
Amendment right to trial by jury. Edrington v. State, 909 N.E.2d 1093, 1099 (Ind. Ct. App.
2009), trans. denied. Here, neither Gray’s pending misdemeanor and failure to appear nor
his alleged probation violation have been adjudicated or conceded to by Gray.
Nonetheless, our supreme court has determined that a probation violation, even if not found
17
by a jury or admitted by the defendant, may serve as a proper basis for sentence
enhancement if “the probation violation was reported in a presentence investigation report
compiled by a probation officer relying upon judicial records.” Robertson, 871 N.E.2d at
287. During the sentencing hearing, the probation officer who compiled Gray’s PSI report
testified that she included the pending Oklahoma matters in the report in reliance upon
chronological case summaries, which she obtained directly from the Oklahoma
jurisdictions holding the outstanding warrants. Therefore, we find that the trial court did
not violate Gray’s Sixth Amendment rights to the extent, if any, that it considered Gray’s
pending warrants for failing to appear and violating his probation to be an aggravating
circumstance.
CONCLUSION
Based on the foregoing, we conclude that Gray is not entitled to a retrial because
the prosecutor’s remarks do not amount to misconduct. Additionally, we conclude that the
trial court did not abuse its discretion in imposing a ninety-year sentence, and the trial court
did not violate Gray’s Sixth Amendment right to a jury trial by considering his outstanding
warrants as aggravating factors to merit a sentence enhancement.
Affirmed.
ROBB, J. and BRADFORD, J. concur
18