Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 30A05

- 1509

- CR

- 1483 | J u l y 1 3 , 2 0 1 6 Page 1 of 18 

### 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.

A TTORNEY FOR A PPELLANT Nicole A. Zelin Pritzke & Davis, LLP Greenfield, Indiana A TTORNEY S FOR A PPELLEE Gregory F. Zoeller Attorney General of Indiana Jesse R. Drum Deputy Attorney General Indianapolis, Indiana



### IN THE 

# COURT OF APPEALS OF I NDIANA

Amanda N. Gonzales , Appellant

- Defendant,

v. 

### State of Indiana , Appellee

- Plaintiff J uly 13, 2016 Court of Appeals Ca se No. 30A05

- 1509

- CR

- 1483 Appeal f rom the Hancock Superior Court The Honorable Terry K. Snow Trial Court Cause No. 30D01

- 1407

- MR

- 1274

Mathias , Judge
.

[1] Following a jury trial, Amanda Gonzales ( “ Gonzales ” ) was convicted of murder and conspiracy to commit murder and sentenced to an aggregate termCourt of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 30A05

- 1509

- CR

- 1483 | J u l y 1 3 , 2 0 1 6 Page 2 of 18 of sixty years

. Gonzales appeals and presents five issues, which we consolidate and restate as the following four:

I. Whether the State presented evidence sufficient to support Gonzales’s conviction s ; II. Whether Gonzales’s convictions for both murder and conspiracy to commit murder constitute impermissible double jeopardy under the Indiana Constitution; III. Whether the trial court erred by excluding hearsay testimony that implicated another individual; and IV. Whether Go nzales’s aggregate sentence of sixty years is inappropriate.

[2] We conclude that the State presented evidence sufficient to support Gonzales’s conviction for murder , that the trial court did not err in excluding the hearsay testimony , and that Gonzales’s se n tence is not inappropriate. However, the State concedes, and we agree, that Gonzales’s convictions for both murder and conspiracy to commit murder constitute impermissible double jeopardy. Accordingly, we affirm Gonzales’s conviction and sentence for murd er but vacate Gonzales’s conviction and sentence for conspiracy to commit murder. 

### Facts and Procedural History

[3] At the time relevant to this appeal , Gonzales lived with her boyfriend, Ronnie Westbrook ( “ Westbrook ” ) , at a hotel on the east side of Indianapolis. Westbrook ren ted several rooms in the hotel. The victim in this case, twenty

eight

- year - old Katrina Miller ( “ Miller ” ), stayed in one of the other rooms rented by Westbrook. On July 19, 2014, Westbrook spent the night in one o f these rooms with Miller. The next morning, Westbrook awoke to the sound ofCourt of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 30A05

- 1509

- CR

- 1483 | J u l y 1 3 , 2 0 1 6 Page 3 of 18 someone ba nging on the door to his room. When he opened the door, he saw Gonzales walking across the parking lot to another room occupied by Joe Meyers ( “ Meyers ” )

. Westbrook retur ned to bed, but approximately fifteen to twenty minutes later, Gonzales returned and ag ain began to bang on the door. This time, Miller answered the door, and Gonzales entered the room, asking Westbrook what he had been doing in the room with Miller. Gonza les believed that Westbrook a nd Miller had been having sex. Gonzales insisted that Westbroo k return to their room with her and became angry when he said that he would not leave with her.

[4] In the early hours of the next morning, Gonzales, Meyers, Westbrook , and Miller all got into Meyers ’ s SUV. G onzales placed something in her waistband, in the small of her back, before she got in the vehicle. Meyers drove to a location on Carroll Road, which runs along the county line betwee n Marion and Hancock Counties. A cornfield is o n the Hancock County side. There, Meyers and Miller exited the vehicle. Westbrook, who was wearing a GPS

enabled ankle monitor, drove with Gonzales to the intersection of 42 nd Street and German Church Road, where Wes tbrook got out of the veh icle. Gonzales then drove back to the cornfield where Meyer s and Miller had been let out. Gonzales then gave Meyers a .380 caliber Sig Saue r brand semi

- automatic pistol and told him to shoot Miller. Meyer s then shot Miller in the back of the head at the base of her skull, execution style. Meyers and Gonzales then left to pick up Westbrook and returned to the h otel at approximately 6:30 a.m.Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 30A05

- 1509

- CR

- 1483 | J u l y 1 3 , 2 0 1 6 Page 4 of 18 [5] Back at the h otel, Gonzales went to the room rented by Isadore Webster ( “ Webster ” ) and his wife, Michelle Muse ( “ Muse ” )

. Gonzales asked Muse if she had ever seen someone be killed or seen a dead body. Gonzales told Muse that she had earlier taken drugs from Westbrook ’ s room and that Westbrook then accused both Gonzales and Miller of taki ng the drug s and threatened to kill them. Gonzales further told Muse that she was afraid when she, Miller, Meyers, and Westbrook went to the cornfield but that Meyers assured her that he would not harm her and proceeded to kill Miller without ai d or assist ance from Gonzales.

[6] Four days after Miller ’ s murder, two Mormon missionaries found Miller ’ s body in the cornfield a nd telephoned the authorities. Subsequent investigation revealed that Miller had been shot in the back of the head, just above her spine , wi th a .380 caliber bullet. The bullet fr agments were found in her brain and a .380 shell casing was found in the field near her body. In addition to the fatal gunshot, Miller also showed signs of having been beaten before being shot: she had blunt

- force tra uma to the right side of her face and some of h er teeth had been knocked out. She also had a contusion on her thigh.

[7] When the discovery of Miller ’ s body was announced on the local news, Webster and Muse decided to tell the police about what Gonzales had said the day of Miller ’ s murder. Based on the information gathered from Muse and Webster , the police collected security video from the hot el on the morning in question. This corroborated Muse ’ s story, and the police began to look for Gonzales, Westbrook, and Meyers.Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 30A05

- 1509

- CR

- 1483 | J u l y 1 3 , 2 0 1 6 Page 5 of 18 [8] In the meantime, Westbrook cut off his ankle monitor, and he and Gonzales fled to a hotel on the west side of Indianapolis. The police eventually located and arrested the pair o n July 27, 2014. While she was in jail awaiting trial, Gonzales spoke to a fellow inmate and told her that the police would never find the gun used to kill Miller and that, even if they did, it could not be forensically matched to Miller ’ s death because “ the y had taken the . . . firing pin and barrel apart from the gun, ” and hidden it at a storage unit rented by Meyers ’ s wife. Tr. p. 633. This jail inmate informed the police about Gonzales’s statements. When the police obtained a warrant and searched the stor age unit, they found a partially disassembled Sig Saur .380 caliber pistol from whic h the barrel had been removed. Subsequent testing revealed this to be the weapon that had fired a shell casing found near Miller ’ s body.

[9] On July 30, 2014, t he State charg ed Gonzales with Level 3 felony kidnapping and murder. On April 13, 2015, the State added an additional charge of Level 1 conspiracy to commit murder. That same day, Gonzales pleaded guilty to the kidnapping and conspiracy charge in exchange for the State dismissing the murder charge. However, Gonzales later successfully petitioned to trial court t o withdraw her plea of guilty, and the State reinstated the charge of murder.

[10] A three

- day jury tria l commenced on August 3, 2015. Among the State ’ s witnesses wa s Detective Trent Smoll ( “ Detective Smoll ” ) of the Hancock County Sheriff ’ s Department. On cross

- examination, Gonzales’s trial counsel asked Detective Smoll if he had spoken with a man named Josh Brown ( “ Brown ” ) during his investigation of Miller ’ s death. Detective Smoll answeredCourt of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 30A05

- 1509

- CR

- 1483 | J u l y 1 3 , 2 0 1 6 Page 6 of 18 in the affirmative, and Gonzales’s counsel asked if Brown had told him that he heard anoth er individual state something. At this point, the State objected on hearsay grounds, and the trial court sustained the objection. Gonzales th en made an offer to prove by stating that Brown told Detective Smoll that he heard Miller “ was robbing people and that was what got her killed. ” Tr. p. 889. At the conclusion of the State ’ s case - in

- chief, the trial court granted Gonzales’s motion for judgm ent on the evidence with regard to the charge of kidnapping.

[11] During Gonzales’s case - in

- chief, she called Detective Smoll as a witness and asked him if he had spoken with Brown and two other men named Chris Taylor ( “ Taylor ” ) and Jordan Storch ( “ Storch ” )

. Gonzales’s counsel attempted to elicit from Detective Smoll th at Taylor had told him that Storch had told Tayl or that he had killed someone. Although the State objected again on hearsay grounds, the trial court granted defense counsel some leeway and allow ed Detective Smoll to testify that “ Taylor

. . . did come to the Sheriff ’ s Department and he did say that he overheard Jordan Storch say that he killed a bitch, or something like that, he wasn ’ t specific. Any of that information was not backed up by any

ev identiary value [.] ” Tr. pp. 942

- 43. Notably, however, Gonzales did not call Brown, Taylor, or Storch as witnesses.

[12] The jury was instructed regarding accomplice liability and found Gonzales guilty of murder and conspiracy to commit murder. A sentencing he aring was held on September 2, 2015, at which the court found no mitigating circumstances and found as aggravating the following circumstances: the harm caused was greater than that necessary to commit the crime; Gonzales hadCourt of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 30A05

- 1509

- CR

- 1483 | J u l y 1 3 , 2 0 1 6 Page 7 of 18 threatened witnesses while she was in jail; Gonzales was on bond at the time the offenses were committed; new charges were filed against Gonzales while she was incarcerated, one of which resulted in a conviction for battery on a witness against her; charges were pending against Gonzales in another county; and the “ cold and calculate[ed] ” nature of Miller ’ s murder. Tr. pp. 1066

- 67. The court then imposed a sentence of sixty years on the murder conviction and a concurrent thirty

- year sentence on the conspiracy convi ction. Gonzales now appeals. 

### I. Sufficiency of the Evidence

[13] Gonzales first argues that the State failed to present sufficient evidence to support her conviction for murder

. Of course, when reviewing a challenge to the sufficiency of evidence to support a conviction, we neither reweigh the evidence or judge the credibility of the witnesses. Neukam v. State , 934 N.E.2d 198, 202 (Ind. Ct. App. 2010) (citing McHenry v. State , 820 N.E.2d 124, 126 (Ind. 2005)). Instead, we consider only the probative evidence and reasonable inferences supporting the verdict, and we will affirm if the probative evidence and reasonable inferences drawn from the evidence could have allowed a reasonable trier of fact to find the defendant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. Id

.

[14] To convict Gonzales of murder, the State was required to prove that she knowingly o r intentionally killed Miller. See Ind. Code § 35

- 42

- 1

- 1(1). Here, the State argued that Gonzales was guilty as an accomplice and that Meyers shot Miller , and the jury was inst ructed regarding accomplice liability

. To convictCourt of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 30A05

- 1509

- CR

- 1483 | J u l y 1 3 , 2 0 1 6 Page 8 of 18 Gonzales as an accomplice, the State was required to prove that she knowingly or intentionally aided, induced, or caused Meyers to kill Miller. See Ind. Code § 35

- 41

- 2

- 4

. Our supreme court has explained the law of accomplice liability as follo ws: A defendant may be charged as the principal but convicted as an accomplice. Generally there is no distinction between the criminal liability of an accomplice and a principal, although evidence that the defendant participated in every element of the underlying offense is not necessary to convict a defendant as an accomplice. There is no bri ght line rule in determining accomplice liability; the particular facts and circumstances of each case determine whether a person was an accomplice. We consider four factors to determine whether a defendant acted as an accomplice: (1) presence at the scene of the crime; (2) companionship with another at scene of crime; (3) failure to oppose commission of crime; and (4) course of conduct before, during, and after occurrence of crime. That a defendant was present during the commission of a crime and failed to oppose the crime is not sufficient to convict her. But, presence at and acquiescence to a crime, along with other facts and circumstances may be considered.

Castillo v. State , 974 N.E.2d 458, 466 (Ind. 2012) (citations and internal quotations omitted).

[15] Gonzales admits that evidence shows that she was at the scene of the crime. However, Gonzales claims that the jury must have credited Muse and Webster ’ s version of events, i.e., that Westbrook was angry with Gonzales and Miller because he thought they had stolen drugs from him and that Meyers shot Mille r with no assistance from her. However, the jury may choose not onlyCourt of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 30A05

- 1509

- CR

- 1483 | J u l y 1 3 , 2 0 1 6 Page 9 of 18 whom to believe but also what portions of conflicting testimony to believe, and is not required to believe any witness ’ testimony, even wh en it is uncontradicted. Wood v. State , 999 N.E.2d 1054, 1064 (Ind. Ct. App. 2013).

[16] More importantly, however, Gonzales’s argument overlooks the testimony of Westbrook, who testified that Gonzales gave Meyers a gun and told him to shoot Miller. Tr. p. 6 8 5. Thus, the evidence indicates that Gonzales was in companionship with another a t the scene of the crime. I nstead of merely failing to oppose the crime, she actively encouraged it by telling Meyers to shoot Miller and provid ing him with the gun. Moreover, Gonzales’ s course of conduct before, during, and after the crime supports a conclusi on that she was an accomplice. She was angry with Westbrook, and apparently Miller, for sleeping together in the same room , actively encouraged Meyers to kill Miller, fled to another hotel after the killing , and knew that Meyers had partially disassembled and disposed of the gun.

[17] From this evidence, the jury could readily conclude that Gonzales knowingly aided , induced, or caused Meyers to kill Miller. Gonzales’s argument s to the contrary are little more than a request that we consider the evidence in her favor, reweigh the evidence, and judge the credibility of the witnesses, which we may not do on appeal. See Neukam , 934 N.E.2d at 202 (citing McHenry v. State , 820 N.E.2d at 126 ).Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 30A05

- 1509

- CR

- 1483 | J u l y 1 3 , 2 0 1 6 Page 10 of 18 

### II. Double Jeopardy

[18] Gonzales also claims that her convictions for both murder and conspiracy to commit murder constitute impermissible double jeopardy. As we have explained previously:

Under the Richardson actual evidence test, co nviction for two offenses may constitute double jeopardy if the defendant demonstrates 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 e ssential elements of the second offense. Lee v. State , 892 N.E.2d 1231, 1234 (Ind. 2008) (citing Richardson v. State , 717 N.E.2d 32, 53 (Ind. 1999)). Our supreme court has explained that the actual evidence test is not simply whether the evidentiary facts used to establish one of the essential elements of the first offense may also have been used to establish one of the essential elements of the second offense. Id . (citing Spivey v. State , 761 N.E.2d 831, 833 (Ind. 2002)). Under the actual evidence test, if the evidentiary facts establishing any one or more elements of one of the challenged offenses establishes the all essential elements of the second challenged offense, double jeopardy considerations prohibit multiple convictions. Alexander v. State , 768 N. E.2d 971, 973 (Ind. Ct. App. 2002), aff ’ d on reh ’ g , 772 N.E.2d 476, trans. denied. It is not required that the evide ntiary facts establishing all of the elements of the one challenged offense also establish all of the essential elements of a second challen ged offense, and both of the offenses being analyzed for double jeopardy purposes must be viewed in the context of the other offense. Id

.Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 30A05

- 1509

- CR

- 1483 | J u l y 1 3 , 2 0 1 6 Page 11 of 18 Chappell v. State , 966 N.E.2d 124, 131

- 32 (Ind. Ct. App. 2012) (footnote omitted). 1

[19] Here, in the information chargin g Gonzales with conspiracy, the State alleged that she agreed with Meyers to kill Miller and that the overt act in furtherance of the conspiracy was that Meyers “ forced Katrina Miller at gun point to enter a corn field and then shot Katrina Miller in the h ead. ” Appellant ’ s App. p. 73. Thus, one of the overt acts alleged was the actual murder itself.

[20] Under these facts and circumstances, we agree with Go nzales and the State that Gonzales’s convictions for both murder and conspiracy to commit murder constitute impermissible double jeopardy. That is, it is a reasonable possibility that the jury relied upon the same evidentiary facts

— the murder of Miller

— to establish all of the elements of murder and one of the elements o f conspiracy to commit murde r. This is improper. See Grinstead v. State , 845 N.E.2d 1027, 1037

- 38 (Ind. 2006) (concluding that convictions for both robbery and conspiracy to commit robbery constituted double jeopardy where the overt act alleged was t he act of robbing the victim , but that convictions for murder and conspiracy to commit murder did not constitute double jeopardy where overt

1 In addition to the Richardson actual evidence test, our courts have long adhered to a series of rules of statutory construction and common law that were often described as double jeopardy, but were not gove rned by the constitutional test set forth in Richardson

. Grinstead v. State , 845 N.E.2d 1027, 1037 (Ind. 2006) (citing Pierce v. State , 761 N.E.2d 826, 830 (Ind. 2002)). Among those sorts of claims that are considered to constitute “double jeopardy” are a claim based on “[c]onviction and punishment for the crime of conspiracy where the overt act that constitutes an element of the conspiracy charge is the very same act as another crime for which the defendant has been convicted and punished.” Id . (citing Ri chardson , 717 N.E.2d at 56

- 57 (Sullivan, J., concurring); Guyton v. State , 771 N.E.2d 1141, 1143 (Ind. 2002)).Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 30A05

- 1509

- CR

- 1483 | J u l y 1 3 , 2 0 1 6 Page 12 of 18 acts alleged did not include t he act of killing the victim); Fosha v. State , 747 N.E.2d 549, 553 (Ind. 2001) (concluding that convictions for both mu rder and conspiracy to commit murder constituted double jeopardy where the evidentiary facts used by the jury to establish the essential elements of the conspiracy charge were also used to prove t he essential elements of murder), overruled in part on other grounds by Gutermuth v. State , 868 N.E.2d 427 (Ind. 2007).

[21] Gonzales argues that we should vacate her conviction for murder to cure this double jeopardy violation, rep eating her contention that the evidence was insufficient to support her conviction for m urder. However, we have already concluded that the evidence was sufficient to support Gonzales’s murder conviction. I t has long been held that the proper remedy for a double jeopardy violation is to vacate the lesser of the two convictions. See Clark v. St ate , 752 N.E.2d 209, 210 (Ind. Ct. App. 2001) (citing Richardson , 717 N.E.2d at 54). We therefore reverse Gonzales’s conviction for conspiracy to commit murder and

vacate her conviction and sentence entered thereon. 2



### III. Exclusion of Evidence Regarding Other Suspect

[22] Gonzales next contends that the trial court erred in limiting her cross

examination of Detective Smoll regarding the fact that Josh Brown had told the

2 Because we reverse Gonzales’s conviction for conspiracy to commit murder, we need not address her claim that the evidence was insufficient to support her conspiracy conviction.Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 30A05

- 1509

- CR

- 1483 | J u l y 1 3 , 2 0 1 6 Page 13 of 18 detective that he had heard that Miller was killed because she had “ robbed ” someone and th at Chris Taylor had told the detective that Jordan Storch had admitted to killing “ a bitch. ” Tr. pp. 942

- 43.

[23] Questions regarding the admission of evidence are within the sound discretion of the trial court, and we review the court ’ s decision only for an abuse of that discretion. Wells v. State , 904 N.E.2d 265, 269 (Ind. Ct. App. 2009), trans. denied

. A trial court abuses its discretion only if its decision is clearly against the logic and effect of the facts and circumstances before it, or if the court ha s misinterpreted the law. Id

.

[24] Gonzales claims that the trial court improperly prevented her from presenting evidence implicating another suspect in the murder of Miller. The State responds that the trial court simply exercised its discretion in excludin g hearsay testimony. Hearsay is defined by rule as a statement that is not made while the declarant is testifying at trial that is offered into evidence to prove the truth of the matter asserted. Ind. Evidence Rule 801(c). Hearsay evidence is generally inadmissible. Ind. Evidence Rule 802.

[25] Here, the statements Gonzales wished to elic it through Detective Smoll were unquestionably hearsay : they were statements made by Brown and Taylor that were not made while they were testifying and that were proffered to prove the truth of the matter asserted in the statements, i.e. that Miller was killed for stealing drugs and Storch admitted to killing “ a bitch

. ” In fact, the statementCourt of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 30A05

- 1509

- CR

- 1483 | J u l y 1 3 , 2 0 1 6 Page 14 of 18 made by Storch was hearsay within hearsay: it was what Detective Smoll said Taylor said that Storch said.

[26] Gonzales makes no claim that these statements were subject to any of the well

defined exceptions to the hearsay rul e. Accordingly, we cannot say that the trial court abused its discretion in exclu ding these hearsay statements. Gonzales does cite to Joyner v. State , 678 N.E.2d 386, 390 (Ind. 1997) for the proposition that it is error to “ categorically exclude the defend ant ’ s evidence supporting [a] defense that the murder was committed by another person. ” However, at issue in Joyner was the relevance of the evidence supporting the defense that the crime

wa s committed by another person. See id . at 390. 3 The Joyner court d id not address the admissibili ty of hearsay evidence at all, as the evidence implicating another individual in that case was not hearsay.

[27] Instead, we agree with the State that this case is more akin to Lashbrook v. State , 762 N.E.2d 756 (Ind. 20 02). In t hat case, the trial court had excluded, under the hearsay rule, evidence that “ one Nicholas Perez had said that the victim, Duane Morton, was going to die or that something adverse was going to

3 The excluded evidence in Joyner included: Oral Bowens, a married man, was having an affair with the victim, Hernandez; Bowens worked at the same place as Hernandez and the defendant; Bowens had se xual relations with Hernandez the night of March 1; he had lied to his wife about where he was that evening and later told his wife that he had had an argument with Hernandez on March 2, the last day Hernandez was seen alive; and Bowens came in late to wor k the morning of March 3 and lied about his tardiness on his time card, which showed that he had come in on time

. Id . at 389.Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 30A05

- 1509

- CR

- 1483 | J u l y 1 3 , 2 0 1 6 Page 15 of 18 happen to him. ” Id . at 758. On appeal, the defendant cited Joyner in support of his argument that the trial court ’ s exclusion of Perez ’ s statements was reversible

error. Our supreme court disagreed, first noting that Lashbrook had presented

“ no material evidence that Perez was connected to the crime

. ” Id . The cour t further noted that other witnesses had testified regarding the fact that Perez had stated that the victim was going to die, and the defendant used this evidence in his closing statement to argue to the jury that there was reasonable doubt regarding Lashb rook ’ s guilt. Id

. Accordingly, the court held that “ the admission of further testimony es tablishing the Perez utterance would have been cumulative, and its exclusion did not prevent the defendant from making the same argument to the jury. ” Id . at 758

- 59.

[28] T he present case is substantially similar to Lashbrook

. Other than the hearsay statement, Gonzales presented no material evidence that Storch was involved in Miller ’ s death. More importantly, Gonzales called Detective Smoll as a witness and elicited from him testimony that Taylor told him that Storch claimed to have killed “ a bitch. ” Smoll then explained that Taylor ’ s information was not ba cked up by any other evidence. Brown ’ s statement that he heard that Miller was killed for stealing drugs was substantially the same as Webster and Muse ’ s testimony regarding Gonzales’s story that Miller was killed because Westbrook thought she had stolen drugs.

[29] Thus, just as in Lashbrook , the jury heard evidence that another person may ha ve killed Miller. Gonzales used this evidence to question the thoroughness of Detective Smoll ’ s investigation. See Tr. pp. 944

- 46. Gonzales also referencedCourt of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 30A05

- 1509

- CR

- 1483 | J u l y 1 3 , 2 0 1 6 Page 16 of 18 this evidence in her closing statement to the jury to argue that there was reasonable doubt regardin g her guilt. See T r. p. 1002. We therefore are unable to conclude that the exclusion of Taylor and Brown ’ s statements constituted reversible error. 

### IV. Appropriateness of Sentence

[30] Lastly, Gonzales claims that her sixty

- y ear sentence is inappropriate. A s we recently explained in Rose v. State :
Even if a trial court acted within its statutory discretion in imposing a sentence, Article 7, Sections 4 and 6 of the Indiana Constitution authorize independent appellate review and revision of a sentence imposed by the trial court. This authority is implemented through Indiana Appellate Rule 7(B), which provides that the court on appeal “ may revise a sentence authorized by statute 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 cha racter of the offender.” Still, we must and should exercise deference to a trial court ’ s sentencing decision, because Rule 7(B) requires us to give “ due consideration ” to that decision and because we understand and recognize the unique perspective a trial court brin gs to its sentencing decisions . Although we have the power to review and revise sentences, the principal role of appellate review should be to attempt to lev el the outliers, and identify some guiding principles for trial courts and those charged with improvement of the sentencing statutes, but not to achieve what we perceive to be
a “ correct ” result in each case. Our review under Appellate Rule 7(B) should fo cus on the forest

— the aggregate sentence

— rather than the trees

— consecutive or concurrent, number of counts, or length of theCourt of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 30A05

- 1509

- CR

- 1483 | J u l y 1 3 , 2 0 1 6 Page 17 of 18 s entence on any individual count . The appropriate question is not whether another sentence is more appropriate; rather, the questio n is whether the sentence imposed is inappropriate. It is the defendant ’ s burden on appeal to persuade us that the sentence imposed by the trial court is inappropriate. 36 N.E.3d 1055, 1063 (Ind. Ct. App. 2015) (footnote omitted) (some citations and inter nal quotations omitted).

[31] The sentencing range for a murder conviction is forty

- five to sixty

- five years, with fifty

- five year s being the advisory sentence. Gonzales was sentenced to a term of sixty years, above the advisory, b ut below the maximum sentenc e. With this in mind, we turn to the nature of the offense and the character of the offender.

[32] The nature of the Mille r’s death was cold and brutal. Because Gonzales was jealous of Miller and the attention that Westbrook had shown her, Gonzales gave Meyer s a handgun and told him to kill Miller, the moth er of a young child. The evidence indicates that Miller was brutally beaten before being shot, execution style, in the back of the head. She was then left unceremoniously to lie in a cornfield until innocen t passers

- by noticed her body. Although all murders are horrible, the manner of Miller’s murder was particularly callous

. This alone would justify the imposition of a sentence above the advisory. However, Gonzales’s character provides further support for t he trial court’s
sentence.Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 30A05

- 1509

- CR

- 1483 | J u l y 1 3 , 2 0 1 6 Page 18 of 18 [33] When Gonzales committed the instant crime, she was out on bond on pending charges of possession of cocaine, driving while intoxicated , and driving while suspended. Moreover, new charges were filed against Gonzales while she was incarcerated, one of which resulted in a conviction for battery on a witness against her , and other charges were pending against her in another county

. Also, nothing in the record indicates that Gonzales ever demonstrated any

remorse for her actions

. None of this speaks well for her character. In short, Gonzales’s sixty

- year sentence is not inappropriate.



### Conclusion

[34] The State presented evidence sufficient to support Gonzales’s conviction for murder. Ample evidence suppor ts a conclusion that Gonzales aided, induced,

or caused Meyers to kill Miller. However, we agree with Gonzales and the State that Gonzales’s convictions for both murder and conspiracy to commit murder constitute impermissible double jeopardy. We therefore vacate her conviction for con spiracy and the sentence imposed thereon

. The trial court did not err in excluding evidence that the investigating detective heard evidence that another individual may have committed the murder. Lastly, Gonzales’s sixty

- year sentence is not inappropriate i n light of the nature of the offense and Gonzales’s character.

[35] Aff irmed in part, reversed in part.

V aidik, C.J., and Barnes, J., concur.