Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 18A-CR-888 | January 31, 2019 Page 1 of 6

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

Cara Schaefer Wieneke

Wieneke Law Office, LLC

Brooklyn, Indiana

ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE

Curtis T. Hill, Jr.

Attorney General of Indiana

Caroline G. Templeton

Deputy Attorney General

Indianapolis, Indiana

I N T H E

COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA

Quintin M. Towles, Jr.,

Appellant-Defendant,

v.

State of Indiana,

Appellee-Plaintiff

January 31, 2019

Court of Appeals Case No.

18A-CR-888

Appeal from the Vigo Superior

Court

The Honorable John T. Roach, 

Judge

Trial Court Cause Nos.

84D01-1510-F2-2595

84D01-1301-FB-305

Baker, Judge.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 18A-CR-888 | January 31, 2019 Page 2 of 6

[1] Quintin Towles, Jr., appeals his convictions for Level 2 Felony Burglary1 and 

Level 5 Felony Carrying a Handgun Without a License,2 arguing that the 

convictions violate the prohibition against double jeopardy. Finding no double 

jeopardy violation, we affirm.

Facts

[2] On October 19, 2015, a resident on Cleveland Avenue in Terre Haute heard 

fighting outside just after midnight. The resident looked outside and saw two 

people, one of whom was later identified as Towles, arguing. Multiple 

neighbors heard a gunshot in the location of the altercation. Someone called 

911 to report shots fired.

[3] Among the neighbors who heard the gunshot were Ronald and Amber Sons. 

Amber went to their front porch to see what was happening. Towles 

approached and told Amber to mind her own business. Ronald told Towles not 

to talk to his wife that way and turned to go back inside. Towles entered the 

porch, pointing a gun at Ronald, and chased Ronald into the house. Terre 

Haute Police Officer Lance Sanders responded to the report of shots fired and 

heard a woman screaming, “get out of our f*cking house” from the direction of 

Ronald and Amber’s house. Tr. Vol. III p. 132.

 

1

Ind. Code § 35-43-2-1.

2

Ind. Code § 35-47-2-1.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 18A-CR-888 | January 31, 2019 Page 3 of 6

[4] Officer Sanders announced his presence and entered the porch. He observed 

Towles, who had an empty holster on his waist and his hand down his pants. 

The officer commanded Towles to show his hands; Towles showed only one 

hand. Officer Sanders believed that Towles was about to draw a weapon and 

grabbed Towles’s arm; Towles then separated from the officer and drew his 

gun. Officer Sanders ordered him to drop it; Towles responded by pointing the 

gun at the officer’s face. Officer Sanders fired three times, hitting Towles.3 

Towles left the house and was apprehended by another officer, who rendered 

first aid.4

[5] On October 23, 2015, the State charged Towles with Level 2 felony burglary, 

Level 5 felony criminal recklessness, Level 6 felony intimidation, two counts of 

Level 6 felony pointing a firearm, Level 6 felony resisting law enforcement, and 

carrying a handgun without a license as a Class A misdemeanor and as a Level 

5 felony based on his criminal history.

[6] Towles’s jury trial took place from October 30 to November 2, 2017. At trial, 

the trial court entered a directed verdict of guilty on one of the counts of 

pointing a firearm. The jury returned guilty verdicts for burglary, criminal 

recklessness, resisting law enforcement, and the misdemeanor carrying a 

handgun without a license charge; it found Towles not guilty of intimidation 

 

3 Officer Sanders was later cleared of any wrongdoing for the shooting following an investigation by the 

Indiana State Police.

4 Towles sustained gunshot wounds on his left arm and the left side of his back. He later recovered fully.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 18A-CR-888 | January 31, 2019 Page 4 of 6

and the remaining pointing a firearm charge. Towles admitted to his prior 

felony conviction, which elevated the carrying a handgun conviction to a Level 

5 felony.

[7] On March 9, 2018, the trial court sentenced Towles to an aggregate term of 

twenty-two years imprisonment.5 Towles now appeals.

Discussion and Decision

[8] The sole argument raised by Towles on appeal is that the convictions for Level 

2 felony burglary and Level 5 felony carrying a handgun without a license 

violate the prohibition against double jeopardy. 

[9] Indiana’s double jeopardy clause was intended to prevent the State from being 

able to proceed against a person twice for the same criminal transgression. 

Wharton v. State, 42 N.E.3d 539, 541 (Ind. Ct. App. 2015). Our Supreme Court 

has held that two or more offenses are the “same offense,” in violation of our 

Constitution’s double jeopardy clause, “if, with respect to either the statutory 

elements of the challenged crimes or the actual evidence used to convict, the 

essential elements of one challenged offense also establish the essential elements 

of another challenged offense.” Richardson v. State, 717 N.E.2d 32, 49 (Ind. 

1999) (emphases original).

 

5 The trial court also revoked Towles’s term of probation that he was serving under Cause Number 84D01-

1301-FB-305 (FB-305). That cause has been consolidated with this one for the appeal, but the facts of FB-305 

are not relevant here and regardless of the way in which we dispose of this appeal it will not affect the 

probation revocation of FB-305.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 18A-CR-888 | January 31, 2019 Page 5 of 6

[10] Here, Towles argues that his convictions violate the actual evidence test. Under 

that test, the “actual evidence presented at trial is examined to determine 

whether each challenged offense was established by separate and distinct facts.” 

Id. at 53. To establish a double jeopardy violation under this test, the defendant 

“must demonstrate a reasonable possibility that the evidentiary facts used by the 

fact-finder to establish the essential elements of one offense may also have been 

used to establish the essential elements of a second challenged offense.” Id. He 

contends that because the firearm used to convict him of carrying a handgun 

without a license was the same firearm used to elevate the burglary charge to a 

Level 2 felony, there is a reasonable possibility that the jury used the same 

evidentiary facts to establish the essential elements of both charges.

[11] To convict Towles of carrying a handgun without a license, the State was 

required to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that he carried a handgun away 

from his property without a license. I.C. § 35-47-2-1. To convict Towles of 

Level 2 felony burglary, the State was required to prove beyond a reasonable 

doubt that, while armed with a deadly weapon, Towles knowingly broke and 

entered the building or structure of the victims with the intent to commit a 

felony inside. I.C. § 35-43-2-1.

[12] At trial, the State presented evidence that before Towles entered the home of 

Ronald and Amber, a gunshot was heard in the vicinity of an argument Towles 

was having with someone. Then, Towles began arguing with Ronald and 

Amber and drew his gun before he entered their home. The deputy prosecutor 

and a detective had the following exchange during Towles’s trial:
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 18A-CR-888 | January 31, 2019 Page 6 of 6

Prosecutor: Now in order to be carrying this type of handgun 

out on the street or the sidewalk out by 21st and 

Cleveland, a person would have to have a permit to 

be able to carry that in that fashion?

Detective: Yeah, it’s actually called a handgun license or a 

firearms license.

Tr. Vol. V p. 96. In other words, Towles had completed the crime of carrying a 

handgun without a license before he committed burglary. 

[13] Our Supreme Court has held that “[c]arrying [a] gun along the street was one 

crime and using it was another.” Mickens v. State, 742 N.E.2d 927, 931 (Ind. 

2001); see also Miller v. State, 790 N.E.2d 437, 439 (Ind. 2003) (holding that 

repeated use of the same weapon to commit multiple separate crimes may 

support multiple convictions with no double jeopardy violation). Here, the 

State provided evidence that Towles carried the handgun on the street before he 

used it in the burglary. Under these circumstances, we find no reasonable 

possibility that the jury used the same evidentiary facts to establish the essential 

elements of more than one offense. Consequently, there was no double 

jeopardy violation.

[14] The judgment of the trial court is affirmed.

May, J., and Tavitas, J., concur.