Case Title: State v. Brake

Citation: 

Docket Number: 20S-CR-499

State: indiana

Court: Indiana Supreme Court

Date: 2020-08-04T00:00:00Z

Document:
I N  T H E  
Indiana Supreme Court 
Supreme Court Case No. 20S-CR-499 
State of Indiana, 
Appellant-Plaintiff, 
–v– 
Samuel E. Vande Brake, 
Appellee-Defendant. 
Decided: August 4, 2020 
Appeal from the Tippecanoe Superior Court, No. 79D01-1903-F1-5 
The Honorable Randy Williams, Judge 
On Petition to Transfer from the Indiana Court of Appeals  
No. 19A-CR-1772 
Per Curiam Opinion 
Chief Justice Rush and Justice David, Justice Massa, Justice Slaughter, and 
Justice Goff concur. 
 
 
 
FILED
C L E R K
Indiana Supreme Court
Court of Appeals
and Tax Court
Aug 04 2020, 12:37 pm
Indiana Supreme Court | Case No. 20S-CR-499 | August 4, 2020 
Page 2 of 4 
Per curiam.  
Samuel E. Vande Brake was charged with four felonies after he shot his 
roommate in the chest during an argument on October 19, 2017.  
Around a week after Vande Brake’s arrest, the State moved to add a 
“use of firearm” sentence enhancement. This permits the trial court to 
impose an additional 5- to 20-year fixed term of imprisonment if the State 
can show beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant knowingly or 
intentionally used a firearm in the commission of the underlying offense. 
I.C. § 35-50-2-11(d), (g). The trial court granted this motion on November 
8, 2017. The trial court later granted the State’s motion to add an 
additional charge of attempted murder and assigned a new case number. 
The State did not raise the firearm enhancement or address the need for 
bifurcated proceedings at any of nine pre-trial or status conferences held 
between the initial hearing on November 17, 2017 and the jury trial on 
June 18, 2019. For reasons not made clear by the record, the firearm 
enhancement was not listed in the Case Information section in either 
chronological case summary. The State also did not submit proposed 
instructions regarding a firearm enhancement or relating to a potential 
bifurcated second phase.  
After a three-day trial, the jury found Vande Brake guilty of four felony 
counts, including aggravated battery as a Level 3 felony. The trial court 
accepted the verdicts and excused the jury. 
Only then did the State raise the firearm enhancement. The trial court 
responded that because the enhancement was not addressed “at any time 
during the course of this trial” and the jury had already been excused, it 
was “dismisse[d] as a matter of course.” Tr. Vol. 1 p. 6. The State did not 
object. One week later, it filed a motion to correct error, which was denied. 
 At the July 19, 2019 sentencing hearing, the trial court sentenced Vande 
Brake to nine years in the Indiana Department of Correction. The State 
appealed, arguing that the trial court abused its discretion by dismissing 
the firearm enhancement sua sponte. 
Indiana Supreme Court | Case No. 20S-CR-499 | August 4, 2020 
Page 3 of 4 
The Court of Appeals reversed and remanded with instructions for the 
trial court to impanel a new jury to hear the enhancement charge. State v. 
Vande Brake, 143 N.E.3d 362 (Ind. Ct. App. 2020). Vande Brake petitioned 
for transfer, which we now grant, vacating the Court of Appeals opinion. 
Ind. Appellate Rule 58(A).  
Discussion, Decision, and Conclusion 
The State appealed from a negative judgment, which required it to 
show that the trial court’s judgment was contrary to law. Burnell v. State, 
56 N.E.3d 1146, 1149-50 (Ind. 2016).  
The firearm enhancement statute provides, in relevant part:  
The state may seek … to have a person who allegedly committed 
an offense sentenced to an additional fixed term of imprisonment if 
the state can show beyond a reasonable doubt that the person 
knowingly or intentionally used a firearm in the commission of the 
offense. 
Ind. Code § 35-50-2-11(d) (emphasis added).  
The use of “may” indicates the State has discretion to seek a firearm 
enhancement—which, necessarily, also means the State can withdraw or 
waive that enhancement.  
We find clear waiver here. The State failed to: raise the firearm 
enhancement at any of nine pretrial conferences; inform the court that the 
enhancement was not listed as a charged offense in either CCS for the 
case; propose preliminary or final jury instructions relating to the 
enhancement; alert the trial court to the need for a bifurcated trial at any 
time before the court excused the jury; or object to the dismissal of the 
enhancement while the jury remained in the building.  
Under these circumstances, the State failed to meet its burden to show 
that the trial court’s implied finding of waiver and subsequent sua sponte 
dismissal of the firearm enhancement were contrary to law. Having 
granted transfer, we affirm the trial court.  
Indiana Supreme Court | Case No. 20S-CR-499 | August 4, 2020 
Page 4 of 4 
Rush, C.J., and David, Massa, Slaughter, and Goff, JJ., concur. 
A TT O R N E YS F O R  AP P EL LA N T  
Curtis T. Hill, Jr. 
Attorney General of Indiana 
Justin F. Roebel 
Supervising Deputy Attorney General 
Indianapolis, Indiana 
A TT O R N E Y F O R  A PP E LLE E  
Ross G. Thomas 
Indianapolis, Indiana