The Indiana Court of Appeals has partially overturned the conviction of Richard Garrett, who was found guilty of a string of violent crimes committed in Indianapolis in 2019. While the court upheld the majority of his convictions, it ruled that some of the charges violated the principle of double jeopardy, leading to a reduction in his sentence.
The Case Summary
[1] Richard Garrett was convicted on 21 counts related to a week-long crime spree in October 2019. The crimes included murder. The trial court sentenced him to 194 years in prison. Garrett appealed, raising three main arguments:
* The trial court shouldn’t have refused to separate the charges for trial.
* Some of his convictions for battery and criminal recklessness constituted double jeopardy.
* His four convictions for carrying a handgun without a license also violated double jeopardy.
The Court of Appeals rejected the first two arguments but agreed with the third, resulting in the elimination of three of the four convictions for carrying a handgun without a license.
The Facts and Procedural History
[2] The events that led to Garrett’s conviction took place in Indianapolis along the 38th Street corridor. The state provided evidence connecting Garrett and Delance Hatcher to the crimes. This included a blue Mazda with their fingerprints. Cell phone data showed that they were near many of the crime scenes. Crucially, a .45 caliber handgun belonging to Garrett was used in nine of the incidents, and Hatcher’s 9mm handgun was used in most of them.
The court’s opinion summarized the 11 incidents and Garrett’s related convictions:
October 13
[3] Garrett and Hatcher fired shots at a car at a Clark gas station. Garrett was convicted of criminal recklessness and carrying a handgun without a license.
October 16
[4] Garrett and Hatcher fired shots at sisters Terrieon and Simone Lisenby. Garrett was convicted of two counts of battery with a deadly weapon.
[5] Garrett and Hatcher shot and killed Devon Owens at the Meadows apartment complex. Garrett was convicted of murder and conspiracy to commit murder.
[6] Garrett and Hatcher fired shots at a van. Garrett was convicted of aggravated battery and two counts of battery with a deadly weapon, plus carrying a handgun without a license.
October 17
[7] Garrett, driving the Mazda, and Hatcher fired shots at Amy Freeman’s home. Garrett was convicted of criminal recklessness.
[8] Garrett and Hatcher robbed Arion Hollins. Garrett was convicted of robbery resulting in serious bodily injury.
[9] Garrett and Hatcher fired shots at Blackburn Terrace Apartments. Garrett was convicted of battery with a deadly weapon and criminal recklessness.
[10] Garrett struck and killed Anthony Mack with the Mazda. Garrett was convicted of reckless homicide.
[11] Garrett and Hatcher stole Tilaunda Jones’s Chrysler sedan. Garrett was convicted of armed robbery.
[12] Garrett and Hatcher fired shots at another apartment building. Garrett was convicted of criminal recklessness and carrying a handgun without a license.
October 20
[13] Garrett fired shots at a car occupied by Isaac Gofan and Shuntae Irving. Garrett was convicted of two counts of battery with a deadly weapon and carrying a handgun without a license.
II. Procedural History
[14] The state initially filed charges in two separate cause numbers. Garrett sought to have the charges for the different incidents tried separately. The state wanted to combine them. The trial court ultimately sided with the state, joining the cases for trial and denying Garrett’s request for separate trials.
[15] The first jury trial ended in a mistrial because Garrett assaulted his attorney. A second trial in October 2024 led to the convictions. Garrett was sentenced to 194 years in prison.
[16] Garrett then appealed the conviction.
Discussion and Decision
I. The Trial Court’s Decision to Join Charges Was Upheld
[17] Garrett argued that the trial court should have granted his motion to have the charges tried separately. He wanted separate trials for each incident.
[18] Indiana law allows for the joining of multiple charges in the same trial if the offenses are similar or part of a single plan. If the offenses are joined based on similarity, the defendant has a right to a separate trial. In other cases, the court must consider several factors to determine if a separate trial is needed to ensure a fair determination.
[19] The Court of Appeals determined that the charges against Garrett were not joined solely because the crimes were similar. The court said the primary reason for joining the charges was that they were based on a series of connected acts: the eight-day crime spree. Therefore, Garrett was not automatically entitled to separate trials.
[20] Garrett also argued that separate trials were needed to ensure a fair outcome. The Court of Appeals looks at the number of charges, the complexity of the evidence, and if the jury could tell the difference between the charges. A defendant must show that the denial of separate trials was prejudicial.
[21] The Court of Appeals found that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying the motion for separate trials. The charges were presented in chronological order. The state provided a chart and a map.
[22] The court also stated that Garrett didn’t show that the denial prejudiced him. The jury instructions and verdict forms presented the charges in chronological order. The jury deliberated for five hours and did not have any questions.
[23] The Court of Appeals concluded that Garrett had not shown that the trial court made a mistake in denying his motion for separate trials.
II. No Double Jeopardy Found in Battery and Criminal Recklessness Convictions
[24] Garrett argued that his convictions for battery with a deadly weapon and criminal recklessness for the Blackburn Terrace Apartments shooting violated the double jeopardy clause.
[25] The court used a three-step test established in a previous Indiana Supreme Court case to determine if double jeopardy occurred.
[26] The first step is to examine the statutes. If the law clearly allows multiple punishments, the inquiry ends.
[27] The second step is to examine the charging information to determine if one offense includes the other. The court found that the charging information for battery was based on the injury to Toney Williams. The criminal recklessness charge was based on the danger posed to everyone in the residential area. Because one offense wasn’t included in the other, there was no double jeopardy violation.
III. Double Jeopardy Found in Multiple Handgun Convictions
[28] Garrett argued that his four convictions for carrying a handgun without a license violated double jeopardy.
[29] The court used the two-step test from a previous Indiana Supreme Court case. The first step asks if the statute clearly defines a “unit of prosecution.” In other words, does the law specify how many separate violations can occur? The court decided that the law didn’t clearly state the unit of prosecution.
[30] Because the law didn’t clearly define the unit of prosecution, the court moved to the second step.
[31] The second step examines whether the facts of the case indicate a single offense or distinguishable offenses. The court said the key to the case was the eight-day crime spree. The court stated that because Garrett carried and used his .45 caliber handgun throughout this spree, there should only be one conviction for carrying a handgun without a license. The court instructed the trial court to eliminate three of the four handgun convictions.
[32] The Court of Appeals affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded the case.