Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 19A-CR-768 | December 17, 2019 Page 1 of 9

ATTORNEY FOR APPELLANT

Darren Bedwell 

Marion County Public Defender 

Indianapolis, Indiana 

ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE

Curtis T. Hill, Jr.

Attorney General of Indiana

Samuel J. Dayton 

Deputy Attorney General 

Indianapolis, Indiana 

IN THE

COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA

Tyler Miller,

Appellant-Defendant,

v.

State of Indiana,

Appellee-Plaintiff.

December 17, 2019

Court of Appeals Case No.

19A-CR-768 

Appeal from the Marion Superior 

Court 

The Honorable Grant Hawkins, 

Judge 

Trial Court Cause No.

49G05-1601-MR-2267 

Brown, Judge.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 19A-CR-768 | December 17, 2019 Page 2 of 9

[1] Tyler Miller appeals his sentence for murder, attempted robbery as a level 5 

felony, and robbery as a level 3 felony. He also requests a corrected abstract of 

judgment and sentencing order. We affirm and remand. 

Facts and Procedural History

[2] On January 15, 2016, Khushwinder Singh was working as a clerk at the 

Cumberland Express Mart. Brittany Thompson, who planned to begin working 

at the store the following day, was also present. At approximately 7:00 p.m., a 

man entered the store, purchased a cigar, and left. A few minutes later, Miller 

and a third man entered the store, displayed firearms, and stated they were 

robbing the store. Singh was on the phone, “said something in his language,” 

and set the phone down. Transcript Volume II at 119. Miller shot Singh, the 

bullet perforated Singh’s heart, and Singh grabbed his chest and dropped to the 

floor. The men told Thompson to open the register, she was not able to open it, 

and the men left the store. Singh died within minutes as a result of the gunshot 

wound. 

[3] At approximately 7:51 p.m., Miller used his phone to access a news article 

titled “Man dies in far east side shooting.” State’s Exhibit 141. At 

approximately 9:20 p.m., Miller and one of the other men entered a Rich Oil 

station on Brookville Road, and one of the men commanded the store clerk to 

open the register and struck him on the head with a gun. The clerk opened the 

register, and the men took the cash and exited the store. The police located the 
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 19A-CR-768 | December 17, 2019 Page 3 of 9

vehicle in which the men had fled at 9:32 p.m., set up a perimeter, and soon

afterwards apprehended the three men. 

[4] On January 20, 2016, the State charged Miller with: Count I, murder; Count II, 

felony murder; Count III, attempted robbery resulting in serious bodily injury

as a level 2 felony; Count IV, robbery resulting in bodily injury as a level 3 

felony; and Count V, battery by means of a deadly weapon as a level 5 felony. 

The jury found him guilty as charged. 

[5] The court entered judgments of conviction for murder under Count I, robbery 

as a level 5 felony as a lesser included offense under Count III, and robbery as a 

level 3 robbery under Count IV. At sentencing, the prosecutor asked for a 

sentence of sixty years for the murder and an aggregate sentence of seventy-five 

years and argued Miller was the person who shot Singh. Miller’s counsel asked 

for the minimum sentence on each count and concurrent sentences and argued 

that Miller was seventeen years old when the crimes occurred, had no prior 

convictions, graduated from high school, was employed, and was the primary 

caretaker for his mother. The court stated that Miller was the shooter, the

shooting was needless, and that, given that he had no prior convictions, was a 

high school graduate, and was employed, it was sentencing him to the advisory 

for murder. The court noted that Miller was involved with the robbery within 

two hours of the shooting and sentenced him to consecutive sentences of fiftyfive years on Count I, five years on Count III, and twelve years on Count IV, 

for an aggregate sentence of 72 years. 
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 19A-CR-768 | December 17, 2019 Page 4 of 9

Discussion 

I.

[6] Miller presents two arguments with respect to Count III: the abstract of 

judgment and sentencing order should be corrected to reflect his attempted 

robbery conviction, and his sentence should be reduced in light of Ind. Code § 

35-50-2-1.3. 

A. Correction of Abstract of Judgment and Sentencing Order on Count III 

[7] Miller observes the trial court’s sentencing order and abstract of judgment show 

a conviction for robbery under Count III but that the jury found him guilty of 

attempted robbery. The State charged Miller with attempted robbery under 

Count III, the court instructed the jury on attempted robbery, and the jury 

found him guilty of attempted robbery. We remand for an amended abstract of 

judgment and sentencing order which reflect Miller’s conviction for attempted 

robbery as a level 5 felony under Count III. 

B. Ind. Code § 35-50-2-1.3 

[8] Miller argues that Ind. Code § 35-50-2-1.3(c) prohibited the trial court from 

imposing a sentence above the advisory for his conviction for attempted robbery 

as a level 5 felony under Count III because it ordered that the sentence be 

served consecutive to his other sentences. Ind. Code § 35-50-2-1.3(c) provides: 

“In imposing . . . consecutive sentences for felony convictions that are not 
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 19A-CR-768 | December 17, 2019 Page 5 of 9

crimes of violence (as defined in IC 35-50-1-2(a))[1] arising out of an episode of 

criminal conduct,[2] in accordance with IC 35-50-1-2 . . . a court is required to 

use the appropriate advisory sentence in imposing a consecutive sentence . . . .”

[9] We observe that Ind. Code § 35-50-2-1.3(c), referring to the use of “the 

appropriate advisory sentence,” is merely a reference to a former version of Ind. 

Code § 35-50-1-2(c) which capped consecutive sentences for an episode of nonviolent criminal conduct at “the advisory sentence for a felony which is one (1) 

class of felony higher than the most serious of the felonies for which the person 

has been convicted.” Ind. Code § 35-50-1-2(c) (2014) (emphasis added)

(subsequently amended). In Robertson v. State, the Indiana Supreme Court 

clarified that Ind. Code § 35-50-2-1.3(c) “was not meant to impose additional 

restrictions on a trial court’s ability to impose consecutive sentences” beyond 

those outlined in Ind. Code § 35-50-1-2(c).3

 871 N.E.2d 280, 285-286 (Ind. 

2007). Effective July 1, 2015, Ind. Code § 35-50-1-2(c) was amended and no 

longer refers to an “advisory sentence.” See Pub. L. No. 238-2015, § 16 (eff. 

1 Ind. Code § 35-50-1-2(a) provides “‘crime of violence’ means the following: (1) Murder . . . (13) Robbery as 

a Level 2 felony or a Level 3 felony . . . .” 

2 Ind. Code § 35-50-1-2(b) provides “‘episode of criminal conduct’ means offenses or a connected series of 

offenses that are closely related in time, place, and circumstance.” 

3 See also Tyler v. State, 903 N.E.2d 463, 468 n.5 (Ind. 2009) (noting the defendant’s claim that the trial court 

erred by running enhanced sentences consecutively and that it had rejected a similar claim in Robertson); 

Pittman v. State, 885 N.E.2d 1246, 1260 n.2 (Ind. 2008) (noting Robertson’s holding that Ind. Code § 35-50-2-

1.3(c) “permits nonadvisory terms to be ordered consecutively”); Freyn v. State, 884 N.E.2d 901, 902-903

(Ind. Ct. App. 2008) (noting Robertson and holding that Ind. Code § 35-50-2-1.3 did not prohibit a consecutive 

sentence in excess of the advisory for the defendant’s conviction for domestic battery as a class D felony

where the defendant did not allege the sentence was limited by Ind. Code § 35-50-1-2). 
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 19A-CR-768 | December 17, 2019 Page 6 of 9

July 1, 2015). Instead, Ind. Code § 35-50-1-2(c) now provides that the 

consecutive sentence for an episode of non-violent criminal conduct “shall not 

exceed the period described in subsection (d).” See id. Ind. Code § 35-50-1-2(d) 

also does not refer to advisory sentences, and it does not limit the total of the 

consecutive terms of imprisonment to which a defendant is sentenced for felony 

convictions arising out of an episode of criminal conduct where the most 

serious crime for which the defendant is sentenced is murder. The language of 

Ind. Code § 35-50-2-1.3(c) to which Miller points appears to be rendered 

obsolete by the current wording of Ind. Code § 35-50-1-2(c). To the extent the 

language of Ind. Code § 35-50-2-1.3(c) was not rendered obsolete, we note that, 

in light of Robertson, the phrase “the appropriate advisory sentence” in Ind. 

Code § 35-50-2-1.3(c) is a reference to Ind. Code § 35-50-1-2(c) and (d) and that 

those sections do not prohibit the trial court’s sentence here under Count III. 

II.

[10] Miller further claims his aggregate sentence of seventy-two years is 

inappropriate in light of the nature of the offenses and his character. He argues 

that he was seventeen years old at the time of the offenses, he will be seventyone years old at his earliest possible release date, imprisonment shortens an 

inmate’s life expectancy, and in practical terms his sentence is one of life

imprisonment. He states there is no question that the circumstances of the 

offenses were grave but argues that, while the robberies were planned, the 

murder was not planned and the sudden shooting of Singh was the impulsive 
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 19A-CR-768 | December 17, 2019 Page 7 of 9

act of a juvenile. He further argues he had no criminal history before this case, 

held a job, and provided care for his mother. 

[11] The State maintains that Miller’s sentence is not inappropriate and notes he 

received the advisory sentence for murder and less than the maximum for 

robbery and attempted robbery, and that Miller’s senseless and unjustifiable 

murder and attempted robbery of Singh and subsequent robbery at the Rich Oil 

station do not warrant a reduced sentence. It argues Miller killed Singh in a 

cold, cruel, and senseless manner and, instead of showing any sort of remorse, 

robbed another gas station a few hours later. It also argues that Miller’s age

does not warrant a revision of his sentence. 

[12] Ind. Appellate Rule 7(B) provides that we “may revise a sentence authorized by 

statute if, after due consideration of the trial court’s decision, [we find] that the 

sentence is inappropriate in light of the nature of the offense and the character 

of the offender.” Under this rule, the burden is on the defendant to persuade 

the appellate court that his sentence is inappropriate. Childress v. State, 848 

N.E.2d 1073, 1080 (Ind. 2006). 

[13] Ind. Code § 35-50-2-3 provides that a person who commits murder shall be 

imprisoned for a fixed term of between forty-five and sixty-five years with the 

advisory sentence being fifty-five years. Ind. Code § 35-50-2-5 provides that a 

person who commits a level 3 felony shall be imprisoned for a fixed term of 

between three and sixteen years with the advisory sentence being nine years. 

Ind. Code § 35-50-2-6 provides that a person who commits a level 5 felony shall 
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 19A-CR-768 | December 17, 2019 Page 8 of 9

be imprisoned for a fixed term between one and six years with the advisory 

sentence being three years. 

[14] Our review of the nature of the offense reveals that, at approximately 7:00 p.m., 

Miller and another man entered the Cumberland Express Mart displaying 

firearms. After Singh set his phone down, Miller shot him in the chest, killing 

him. At about 7:50 p.m., Miller accessed a news article regarding the murder of 

Singh. At approximately 9:20 p.m., Miller and another man entered the Rich 

Oil station, struck and threatened the store clerk, and took cash from the 

register. Miller’s murder of Singh was senseless. Even after the first attempted 

robbery resulted in Miller killing Singh, Miller went on to participate in the 

armed robbery of the Rich Oil station. 

[15] Our review of the character of the offender reveals that Miller was born on 

March 17, 1998, and according to the presentence investigation report (“PSI”), 

graduated from high school in 2016, admitted to being suspended due to 

fighting, and was charged with battery resulting in bodily injury as a class A

misdemeanor in March 2017 but the charge was dismissed. Miller committed 

the offenses in this case approximately two months prior to his eighteenth 

birthday. The PSI also states that he had been employed bussing tables for 

approximately four months prior to his arrest and reported working at least part 

time all twelve months prior to his arrest. The Indiana risk assessment tool 

places Miller in the high risk to reoffend category in the domains of 

neighborhood problems and peer associations. Miller’s mother wrote a letter 

stating that, when she became extremely ill, he took a lot of responsibility as her 
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 19A-CR-768 | December 17, 2019 Page 9 of 9

in-home caretaker. Miller received the advisory sentence for murder and 

consecutive sentences, which were enhanced but not to the statutory 

maximums, for robbery and attempted robbery. After due consideration, we 

conclude that Miller has not sustained his burden of establishing that his 

sentence is inappropriate. 

Conclusion 

[16] We remand with instructions to enter an amended sentencing order and 

abstract of judgment which reflect Miller’s conviction for attempted robbery as 

a level 5 felony under Count III. We affirm Miller’s sentence. 

[17] Affirmed and remanded. 

Baker, J., and Riley, J., concur.