Opinion
23A-CR-2057
08-02-2024
Weston R. Blakely, Appellant-Defendant, v. State of Indiana, Appellee-Plaintiff.
Attorney for Appellant Ryan M. Gardner Beers Mallers Backs & Salin, LLP Fort Wayne, Indiana Attorneys for Appellee Theodore E. Rokita Attorney General of Indiana Andrew A. Kobe Section Chief for Criminal Appeals Indianapolis, Indiana
Pursuant to Ind. Appellate Rule 65(D), this Memorandum Decision is not binding precedent for any court and may be cited only for persuasive value or to establish res judicata, collateral estoppel, or law of the case.
Appeal from the Allen Superior Court The Honorable Frances C. Gull, Judge Trial Court Cause No. 02D05-2202-MR-1
Attorney for Appellant Ryan M. Gardner Beers Mallers Backs & Salin, LLP Fort Wayne, Indiana
Attorneys for Appellee Theodore E. Rokita Attorney General of Indiana
Andrew A. Kobe Section Chief for Criminal Appeals Indianapolis, Indiana
MEMORANDUM DECISION
BAKER, SENIOR JUDGE
Statement of the Case
[¶1] Weston R. Blakely fatally shot Jonathon Jackson in the back of the head. Blakely argued he acted in self-defense, claiming Jackson had attacked him with a knife in his own home. The jury found Blakely guilty of murder and further determined he was eligible for a sentencing enhancement for using a firearm to commit a felony resulting in death. Blakely now appeals his convictions and his eighty-year sentence. We affirm.
Issues
[¶2] Blakely raises three issues, which we restate as:
I. Whether the State presented sufficient evidence to rebut beyond a reasonable doubt Blakely's claim of self-defense.
II. Whether the trial court erred in denying Blakely's motion for an evidentiary hearing to investigate alleged juror misconduct.
III. Whether Blakely's sentence is inappropriate.
Facts and Procedural History
[¶3] On November 10, 2021, at 1:26 a.m., Officer Julian Mestre and Officer Keith Harris of the Fort Wayne Police Department were dispatched to an apartment complex to investigate a report of "five or six bangs" and a person yelling for help in a corridor outside the apartments. Tr. Vol. 2, p. 150. Upon the officers' arrival, the person who had called 911 directed them to apartment 2D, on the second floor.
[¶4] When the officers reached the second floor, they saw blood smeared on both sides of the corridor's walls and on the door to apartment 2D. They heard a voice coming from inside, asking for help. The officers knocked on the door. A person inside the apartment invited them to enter, but Officer Maestre told the person to come to the door. A man, later identified as Blakely, opened the door and allowed the officers inside. He was "covered in blood." Id. at 153. Blakely told the officers "he had been stabbed by his friend, so he had shot him." Id.
[¶5] The officers conducted a protective sweep of the one-bedroom apartment, requiring Blakely to lay on the ground in the living room while they looked around. Officer Harris asked Blakely if there were any guns present. He said "yes," but he did not say where they could be found. Id. at 164-65.
[¶6] Meanwhile, Officer Mestre saw a dead man lying on his back, partially in a small hallway and partially in the bathroom. He was covered in blood, with a large pool of blood underneath him. Shell casings were scattered around the body, and a serrated utility knife was nearby on the floor.
[¶7] Officer Mestre entered the bedroom, which had a lockable door. He saw blood on the walls and on the floor. The closet door was open, and the officer saw blood on the top shelf, close to a magazine of handgun ammunition.
[¶8] The officers notified dispatch of a need for emergency medical services. Officer Mestre examined Blakely and saw cuts on his hands and a puncture wound on his neck. He also noticed a knife on the living room floor, near a couch. During the examination, Blakely identified the dead man as Jonathan Jackson.
[¶9] Other officers arrived at the apartment and looked for the gun. An officer found a handgun in the bedroom closet, inside an open plastic tote. The gun was covered in blood and contained no ammunition. At that point, medics arrived and took Blakely to the hospital for treatment.
[¶10] A crime scene technician searched the apartment. He noted blood on the living room floor where the officers had briefly detained Blakely while performing their protective sweep. There was also blood on the wall and the light switch by the front door, as well as on the edge of the front door. The technician examined the knife on the living room floor and discovered blood on the blade. He also found a tooth on the living room floor, which was later determined to have come from Blakely. Later, he saw blood spatter on a television screen in the living room. The technician concluded that the blood spatter and the tooth on the floor were the result of one person hitting another person in the mouth.
[¶11] In the hallway, there were blood smears on the walls next to Jackson's body. There were seven ammunition cartridges, or empty shells, near the body. The technician also found a bullet in a closet in the hallway.
[¶12] When the technician entered the bedroom, he saw blood drops on the floor near the closet, next to the tote in which the officers had found the handgun. An empty handgun magazine was on the floor, and the handgun was still in the tote. The handgun had "a significant amount of blood" on it. Id. at 250. The technician looked on the top shelf in the closet and found another handgun, a rifle, and several boxes of ammunition. There was blood on the edge of the top shelf and on a gun case. Based on the location of the shells around Jackson's body, the technician concluded the shooter had stood just inside the bedroom, firing the gun into the hallway.
[¶13] Dr. Scott Wagner performed an autopsy on Jackson. Blakely had shot Jackson seven times, in the following locations: (1) the back of the head; (2) the front of the right shoulder; (3) near the middle of the chest, slightly to the right; (4) lower on the chest, also to the right; (5) the right side of the upper abdomen, and (6) two shots close together on the left side of Jackson's chest, near the bottom of the rib cage.
[¶14] Dr. Wagner also determined Jackson had a sharp-force injury on the front of his neck, a deep and wide incision resulting from at least three cuts. The wound was large, but there was little hemorrhaging. As a result, Dr. Wagner concluded Jackson's heart had stopped beating by the time the cuts were inflicted. He also concluded Jackson died by homicide, caused by the gunshot wounds. Dr. Wagner agreed the shot to the back of the head would have been "immediately incapacitating." Id. at 200.
[¶15] Later, two detectives interviewed Blakely. The interview was recorded and played for the jury at trial. Blakely said Jackson had asked to stay at his apartment, so he met Jackson at a gas station near Jackson's father's house. They went to Blakely's apartment, arriving at around 12:30. According to Blakely, the two men looked at videos together, but when Blakely got up to go to bed, Jackson suddenly stabbed him in the back and pushed him to the ground. Blakely further claimed Jackson continued to stab him as he tried to cover his head with his hands, backing off only when Blakely pushed a thumb into Jackson's eye.
[¶16] Next, Blakely said he went to his bedroom, where he retrieved a handgun from the closet and pointed it at Jackson. According to Blakely, Jackson followed and advanced at him despite a warning to stay back. Blakely claimed to have shot Jackson repeatedly until the gun was out of ammunition. He told the officers he then accidentally dropped the handgun and went to the living room, where he picked up his phone and called 911. Blakely denied leaving the apartment to call for help, claiming he might have touched the walls as the medics were taking him away. He then stated he laid down on the couch until first responders arrived.
[¶17] Blakely told the officers he did not remember cutting Jackson's throat with his serrated utility knife. When the officers confronted him with a photograph of the neck injury, Blakely changed his story to say he had cut Jackson's neck because he thought he saw Jackson move, and he was concerned some gunshots may have missed. He apologized to the officers for lying about not inflicting the neck wound.
[¶18] Dr. Bill Smock later examined the autopsy photographs and other information about Jackson's death. He determined that the shot to the back of Jackson's head was the first wound, which incapacitated him and caused him to fall to the ground, striking his head on the bathroom floor. The puddle of blood on the floor around Jackson's head was consistent with Jackson not moving once he struck the ground. Dr. Smock also determined that the shooter had been standing behind Jackson. Next, the attacker inflicted the deep cuts to Jackson's neck with the serrated knife, followed by the gunshots to the shoulder and torso. And, judging by the angle of those gunshot wounds and the presence of gunpowder on Jackson's shirt and body, the shooter was less than four feet away, on the left side of Jackson's prone body, when he fired the shots. Dr. Smock concluded, based on the angle of the gunshot wounds to Jackson's shoulder and torso, that they could not have been inflicted while Jackson was standing, even if he had turned his torso to present a smaller profile to Blakely.
[¶19] As for Blakely's knife wounds, Dr. Smock determined Jackson had stabbed Blakely during a struggle on the ground, when Blakely was on top of Jackson. Dr. Smock further concluded some of Blakely's sharp-force injuries were self- inflicted. In addition, Dr. Smock suggested Blakely had smeared blood around and outside the apartment, perhaps in an attempt to make the struggle preceding the shooting "look worse than it was[.]" Tr. Vol. 3, p. 194.
[¶20] The police submitted swabs and other items to the Indiana State Police Laboratory for DNA testing. An examination of samples taken from the knife found in the living room revealed strong support for the conclusion that Blakely and Jackson contributed to DNA found on the knife handle, while Blakely contributed to DNA on the blade. In addition, there was very strong support for the conclusion that Blakely's blood was on the handle of the serrated knife found near Jackson's body and in the spatter on the television in the living room. Next, the analyst found very strong support for the conclusion that Blakely contributed to DNA found on the bathroom light switch, several walls inside the apartment, and on Jackson's shirt and pants. A firearms examiner determined that the bullets that struck Jackson were fired from the handgun that the officers found in Blakely's closet.
[¶21] The State charged Blakely with murder, a felony. The State also filed a sentencing enhancement, alleging Blakely had used a firearm in the commission of a felony resulting in death. At trial, Blakely testified in his own defense. The jury determined he was guilty of murder and, during a bifurcated proceeding, further determined he was eligible for the sentencing enhancement.
[¶22] After the jury returned its verdict, but prior to the sentencing hearing, Blakely moved to hold an evidentiary hearing. He claimed an alternate juror had observed misconduct during jury deliberations. The trial court held oral argument on the motion and denied it. The court subsequently sentenced Blakely to eighty years, and this appeal followed.
Discussion and Decision
I. Sufficiency of the Evidence - Self-Defense
[¶23] Blakely argues the Court should reverse his murder conviction because the State failed to present sufficient evidence to rebut his claim of self-defense. "Selfdefense is a legal justification for an otherwise criminal act." Stewart v. State, 167 N.E.3d 367, 376 (Ind.Ct.App. 2021), trans. denied. "A person . . . is justified in using deadly force; and . . . does not have a duty to retreat; if the person reasonably believes that that force is necessary to prevent serious bodily injury to the person[.]" Ind. Code § 35-41-3-2(c) (2019).
[¶24] To prevail in presenting a self-defense claim, the defendant must show he was in a place where he had a right to be; did not provoke, instigate, or participate willingly in the violence; and had a reasonable fear of death or great bodily harm. Stewart, 167 N.E.3d at 376. "To defeat a self-defense claim, the State is required to disprove at least one of these elements beyond a reasonable doubt." Turner v. State, 183 N.E.3d 346, 354 (Ind.Ct.App. 2022), trans. denied. "When a defendant challenges the sufficiency of the State's evidence in this regard, we will not reweigh the evidence or judge the credibility of witnesses." Moore v. State, 181 N.E.3d 442, 445 (Ind.Ct.App. 2022).
[¶25] We do not know what caused Blakely's fight with Jackson. Blakely claimed Jackson ambushed him from behind without provocation, but the jury was not obligated to believe him. In any event, it appears Jackson punched Blakely in the face, causing Blakely to lose a tooth. The two men then fought on the living room floor, and while Blakely was on top of Jackson, Jackson stabbed him in the head and neck. When the two separated, Blakely went to his bedroom. Rather than locking the door, he retrieved a loaded handgun from the closet.
[¶26] Blakely confronted Jackson, who was in the small hallway connecting the bedroom, bathroom, and living room. It appears Jackson was no longer armed with the knife, which was later found on the living room floor. Blakely shot Jackson in the back of the head. Jackson was immediately incapacitated and fell to the floor. Next, Blakely slashed Jackson's neck with the serrated knife and then shot him in the right shoulder and torso six times at close range. Before Blakely called 911, he inflicted more cuts on himself and smeared blood on the apartment walls and in the hallway outside. Later, Blakely lied to the police about cutting Jackson's throat.
[¶27] This evidence is sufficient to disprove beyond a reasonable doubt that Blakely had a reasonable fear of death or great bodily harm when he shot Jackson in the back of the head and inflicted the subsequent cuts and gunshot wounds. See Pinkston v. State, 821 N.E.2d 830, 842 (Ind.Ct.App. 2004) (State presented sufficient evidence to rebut Pinkston's claim of self-defense; after a fight, Pinkston retrieved a handgun and shot several unarmed people), trans. denied.
II. Denial of Evidentiary Hearing on Juror Misconduct
[¶28] Blakely argues the trial court should have held an evidentiary hearing to investigate allegations of juror misconduct during deliberations. Post-trial investigations of jurors should be undertaken only in "extraordinary cases." Isom v. State, 170 N.E.3d 623, 655 (Ind. 2021). Jurors are generally barred from testifying about statements or incidents that occurred during deliberations. Ind. Evidence Rule 606(b)(1). Among the few exceptions to Rule 606(b)(1), jurors may testify as to whether "extraneous personal information was improperly brought to the jury's attention[.]" Ind. Evidence Rule 606(b)(2)(A).
[¶29] We review a trial court's ruling on juror misconduct issues for an abuse of discretion. See Griffin v. State, 754 N.E.2d 899, 901 (Ind. 2001) (applying abuse of discretion standard to decision on Griffin's post-trial allegations of jury misconduct during deliberations), on reh'g, 763 N.E.2d 450 (2002). We will find an abuse of discretion only when the trial court's decision "is clearly against the logic and effect of the facts and circumstances[.]" Majors v. State, 773 N.E.2d 231, 235 (Ind. 2002).
[¶30] Blakely provided an affidavit from his attorney along with his motion for an evidentiary hearing. In the affidavit, counsel alleged he had received information from an alternate juror one week after the trial ended. The alternate juror told counsel that during deliberations: (1) one of the jurors told the others that they could go to the website for Blakely's apartment complex and take a virtual tour to see the apartment's size and layout (but the alternate did not know if anyone had visited the website); (2) the same juror also told the others that he was a phlebotomist and stated that the appearance of the blood pool around Jackson's body was suspicious; (3) the foreperson called Blakely a "psychopath" during deliberations (Appellant's Conf. App. Vol. III, p. 27); and (4) one of the jurors stated that she was changing her vote to guilty only because of her fellow jurors.
[¶31] Blakely's counsel further stated the alternate juror declined to execute an affidavit. The alternate told counsel in an email, "I have to admit that I don't believe that (even if the events did rise to the level of misconduct) they altered the jurors' thinking with regards to their vote [sic]." Id. at 29.
[¶32] During oral argument on Blakely's motion, Blakely suggested the trial court could interview the jurors in chambers to see if extraneous prejudicial information played a role in the jury's verdict. The trial court denied Blakely's motion, concluding: (1) there is no evidence anyone looked at extraneous information; and (2) jurors such as the phlebotomist are allowed to use their own knowledge and experience during deliberations.
[¶33] We agree with the trial court that Blakely failed to provide evidence, such as an affidavit from a juror, to support his allegation that jurors received extraneous prejudicial information. And even if the trial court had considered the allegations in counsel's affidavit, the alternate juror conceded she did not know if any jurors had accessed the website. The trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying Blakely's request for further factual investigation. See Majors, 773 N.E.2d at 237-38 (trial court did not err in denying Majors' request to depose jurors to investigate alleged misconduct; juror alleged another juror consumed alcohol at night during sequestration, but Majors provided no evidence any juror was under influence of alcohol during deliberations or received improper outside information).
III. Appropriateness of Sentence
[¶34] For his final claim of error, Blakely argues his sentence is too lengthy and asks the Court to reduce it by an unspecified amount. Article 7, section 6 of the Indiana Constitution authorizes the Court to review and revise sentences. Indiana Appellate Rule 7(B) implements this authority, stating the Court may revise a sentence "if, after due consideration of the trial court's decision, the Court finds that the sentence is inappropriate in light of the nature of the offense and the character of the offender."
[¶35] "The court's role under Rule 7(B) is to leaven the outliers, . . . and we reserve our 7(B) authority for exceptional cases." Faith v. State, 131 N.E.3d 158, 159-60 (Ind. 2019) (internal quotation omitted). "We consider not only the aggravators and mitigators found by the trial court, but also any other factors appearing in the record." George v. State, 141 N.E.3d 68, 73 (Ind.Ct.App. 2020), trans. denied. "Because we generally defer to the judgment of trial courts in sentencing matters, defendants must persuade us that their sentences are inappropriate." Banks v. State, 228 N.E.3d 528, 534 (Ind.Ct.App. 2024).
[¶36] At the time Blakely murdered Jackson, the advisory sentence for murder was fifty-five years, the maximum sentence was sixty-five years, and the minimum sentence was forty-five years. Ind. Code § 35-50-2-3 (2015). In addition, a defendant who used a firearm to commit a felony resulting in death could receive "an additional fixed term of imprisonment of between five (5) years and twenty (20) years." Ind. Code § 35-50-2-11(g) (2021). The trial court sentenced Blakely to eighty years, consisting of sixty years for murder plus the maximum amount for the firearm sentencing enhancement.
[¶37] "Our analysis of the 'nature of the offense' requires us to look at the nature, extent, heinousness, and brutality of the offense." Pritcherv. State, 208 N.E.3d 656, 668 (Ind.Ct.App. 2023). We do not know how Blakely and Jackson's struggle began, but Jackson punched Blakely in the mouth, causing him to lose a tooth. And Jackson stabbed Blakely several times as they struggled on the ground. Next, Blakely got away from Jackson, went to his bedroom, and retrieved a handgun from the closet. Blakely shot Jackson in the back of the head, possibly after Jackson turned to flee. Blakely then slashed Jackson's neck several times and shot Jackson in the right shoulder and torso until he was out of ammunition, all while Jackson was prone and unconscious or dead. Next, Blakely made efforts to make his own injuries seem more serious than they were. He also initially lied to the police about the knife wounds he inflicted on Jackson.
[¶38] Blakely claims he acted under strong provocation when he killed Jackson. But Blakely's brutal conduct was grossly disproportionate to the harm Jackson inflicted on him during their fight.
[¶39] "Our analysis of the character of the offender involves a broad consideration of a defendant's qualities, including the defendant's age, criminal history, background, past rehabilitative efforts, and remorse." Id. Blakely was twenty-four years old at sentencing. He has no prior criminal history, a factor the trial court cited as a mitigating circumstance. But we agree with the trial court that Blakely's lack of a criminal record deserves less consideration here given the severity of the offenses. Blakely also claims he has strong support from family and others, but their assessments of his character must be considered in context with the disturbing nature of his acts against Jackson. He has failed to demonstrate that his sentence is an outlier in need of correction. See Shaw v. State, 771 N.E.2d 85, 90 (Ind.Ct.App. 2002) (no grounds to revise maximum sentence for attempted murder; Shaw had no prior criminal history, but the nature of her offense was brutal and calculating), trans. denied.
Conclusion
[¶40] For the reasons stated above, we affirm the judgment of the trial court.
[¶41] Affirmed.
Altice, C.J., and Foley, J., concur.