Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 18A-CR-1794 | April 8, 2019 Page 1 of 5

MEMORANDUM DECISION

Pursuant to Ind. Appellate Rule 65(D), 

this Memorandum Decision shall not be 

regarded as precedent or cited before any 

court except for the purpose of establishing 

the defense of res judicata, collateral 

estoppel, or the law of the case.

ATTORNEY FOR APPELLANT

Elizabeth A. Bellin

Elkhart, Indiana

ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE

Curtis T. Hill, Jr.

Attorney General of Indiana

Laura R. Anderson

Deputy Attorney General

Indianapolis, Indiana

I N T H E

COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA

Leonard E. Standifer,

Appellant-Defendant,

v.

State of Indiana,

Appellee-Plaintiff.

April 8, 2019

Court of Appeals Case No.

18A-CR-1794

Appeal from the Elkhart Superior 

Court

The Honorable Stephen R. 

Bowers, Judge

Trial Court Cause No.

20D02-1410-F4-11

Barnes, Senior Judge.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 18A-CR-1794 | April 8, 2019 Page 2 of 5

Statement of the Case

[1] Leonard E. Standifer appeals his convictions of unlawful possession of a 

firearm by a serious violent felon, a Level 4 felony;1and possession of 

paraphernalia, a Class A misdemeanor.2 We affirm.

Issue

[2] Standifer raises two issues, which we consolidate and restate as: whether the 

trial court erred in admitting a firearm and paraphernalia into evidence at trial.

Facts and Procedural History

[3] On the night of October 1, 2014, Sergeant Michael McHenry of the Elkhart 

County Sheriff’s Department was on patrol with his K-9 unit. Sergeant 

McHenry was trained in deploying K-9 units to search for contraband. He was 

accompanied by a new officer.

[4] Sergeant McHenry saw a Chrysler Sebring pass him. The Sebring was traveling 

eighty-five miles per hour in a seventy mile per hour zone, so the sergeant 

initiated a traffic stop.

[5] Standifer was the Sebring’s driver, and no one else was in the car. Sergeant 

McHenry approached the car and obtained Standifer’s driver’s license. He 

 

1

Ind. Code § 35-47-4-5(c) (2014).

2

Ind. Code § 35-48-4-8.3 (2014).
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 18A-CR-1794 | April 8, 2019 Page 3 of 5

smelled an odor of marijuana emanating from the Sebring. As a result, 

Sergeant McHenry had Standifer get out of the car and handcuffed him. 

Standifer admitted he had smoked marijuana several hours prior and that there 

was a small amount of that drug in the car.

[6] Sergeant McHenry intended to have the K-9 search for the marijuana, but he 

first searched the passenger compartment to look for anything that could injure

the K-9. He found a pill bottle, which he opened. The bottle contained a green 

leafy substance that later field-tested positive for marijuana. Sergeant McHenry 

determined at that point that he was going to arrest Standifer.

[7] Next, Sergeant McHenry retrieved his K-9 from his car. The K-9 indicated the 

presence of controlled substances at the driver’s side door handle and at the 

trunk, near the latch. The sergeant returned the K-9 to his car and opened the 

trunk. He found a small glass pipe with burnt residue and a brillo pad in a 

container. Sergeant McHenry recognized those items as commonly used to 

smoke crack cocaine. In addition, he found a handgun in another container. 

Further investigation revealed that Standifer had a prior conviction of

manslaughter from New York state.

[8] On October 6, 2014, the State charged Standifer with possession of a firearm by 

a serious violent felon, possession of paraphernalia, and possession of 

marijuana, a Class A misdemeanor. Standifer filed a motion to suppress, which 

the trial court denied after a hearing. The case was tried by jury, and the jury 
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 18A-CR-1794 | April 8, 2019 Page 4 of 5

determined he was guilty as charged. The court imposed a sentence, and this 

appeal followed.

Discussion and Decision

[9] Standifer does not challenge Sergeant McHenry’s decision to pull him over. In 

addition, Standifer does not challenge the sergeant’s search of the passenger 

compartment of his car, which led to the discovery of the marijuana. Standifer

instead claims the search of the trunk violated his federal and state 

constitutional protections against unreasonable search and seizure. He 

concludes the trial court should not have admitted the handgun and the 

paraphernalia into evidence.

[10] The State argues Standifer has waived his constitutional claims for appellate 

review. The State notes, and Standifer does not disagree, that Standifer failed 

to object to the admission of the handgun and paraphernalia at trial. “When a 

motion to suppress has been overruled and the evidence sought to be 

suppressed is later offered at trial, no error will be preserved unless there is an 

objection at that time.” Wagner v. State, 474 N.E.2d 476, 484 (Ind. 1985). We 

conclude Standifer has procedurally defaulted his constitutional claims.

[11] Standifer next argues in his reply brief that regardless of waiver, admitting the 

handgun and paraphernalia into evidence was fundamentally erroneous. A 

panel of this Court has described the fundamental error doctrine as follows:

The fundamental error doctrine is an exception to the general 

rule that the failure to object at trial constitutes a procedural 
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 18A-CR-1794 | April 8, 2019 Page 5 of 5

default precluding consideration of an issue on appeal. The 

fundamental error exception is extremely narrow. To qualify as 

fundamental error, the error must be so prejudicial to the rights of 

the defendant as to make a fair trial impossible. The 

fundamental error exception applies only when the error

constitutes a blatant violation of basic principles, the harm or 

potential for harm is substantial, and the resulting error denies 

the defendant fundamental due process.

Hayworth v. State, 904 N.E.2d 684, 694 (Ind. Ct. App. 2009) (quotations and 

citations omitted).

[12] The State claims an appellant may not raise issues, including fundamental 

error, for the first time in a reply brief. We agree. See Curtis v. State, 948 N.E.2d 

1143, 1148 (Ind. 2011) (declining to address claim of fundamental error; claim 

raised for first time in reply brief). As a result, we will not review Standifer’s 

search and seizure claims on the merits or for fundamental error.

Conclusion

[13] For the reasons stated above, we affirm the judgment of the trial court.

[14] Affirmed.

Tavitas, J., concur.

Pyle, J., dissent without opinion.