Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 15A01-1603-CR-593 | February 21, 2017 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

R. Patrick Magrath

Alcorn Sage Schwartz &

Magrath, LLP

Madison, Indiana

ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE

Curtis T. Hill, Jr.

Attorney General of Indiana

Lyubov Gore

Deputy Attorney General

Indianapolis, Indiana

I N T H E

COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA

Ivan Gooden, Jr.,

Appellant-Defendant,

v.

State of Indiana,

Appellee-Plaintiff

February 21, 2017

Court of Appeals Case No.

15A01-1603-CR-593

Appeal from the Dearborn Circuit 

Court

The Honorable James D. 

Humphrey, Judge

Trial Court Cause No.

15C01-1501-F1-1

Baker, Judge.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 15A01-1603-CR-593 | February 21, 2017 Page 2 of 5

[1] Ivan Gooden, Jr., appeals his convictions for Criminal Confinement,1 a Level 3 

felony, and Aggravated Battery,2 a Level 3 felony. He argues that his 

convictions violate the prohibition against double jeopardy and that his 

sentences should not be run consecutively. Finding no violation of the 

prohibition against double jeopardy or any other error, we affirm.

Facts

[2] Gooden and Nicholl Lunsford were coworkers who became romantically 

involved in December 2014. The couple and Lunsford’s teenage son moved 

into an apartment together. One week after moving in together, Gooden 

choked Lunsford until she lost consciousness. A week after that, Gooden again 

choked Lunsford unconscious; this time, she fell on her face and suffered two 

black eyes. After another attack, Lunsford’s son called the police, but Gooden 

threatened to “burn [her] daughter’s house down with [her] grandbabies” 

inside, tr. p. 126; when the police arrived, Lunsford recanted her story.

[3] On January 22, 2015, Lunsford was looking for a pen. She asked Gooden 

whether he had moved it. They began arguing over the pen, and when 

Lunsford yelled back, Gooden angrily accused her of “trying to get the white 

people . . . that live next door” to get him in trouble. Tr. p. 93, 141. He 

grabbed her and choked her unconscious, allowing her to fall onto the floor, 

 

1

Ind. Code § 35-42-3-3.

2

I.C. § 35-42-2-1.5.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 15A01-1603-CR-593 | February 21, 2017 Page 3 of 5

which resulted in Lunsford chipping her teeth. Gooden then dragged her by her 

ankles to the bedroom. Lunsford regained consciousness, but Gooden placed 

her on the bed, got on top of her, and began choking her again. He placed a 

pillow over her face and told her that she was going to die. Over the course of 

an hour, Lunsford lost consciousness at least two more times as Gooden 

attacked her. In addition to the broken teeth and loss of consciousness, 

Lunsford suffered a bruise on her hip, bruises on her elbow, a concussion, 

marks around her neck, and swelling above her eyebrow.

[4] Lunsford’s friend came by the apartment shortly thereafter and was eventually 

able to call the police. Gooden was arrested and on January 26, 2015, was 

charged with attempted murder, criminal confinement, and was alleged to be a 

habitual offender. The State later amended the charging information to include 

a count of aggravated battery.

[5] After a December 14-18, 2015, bifurcated jury trial, the jury found Gooden 

guilty of criminal confinement and aggravated battery, but not guilty of 

attempted murder. Gooden admitted to being an habitual offender. The trial 

court held a sentencing hearing on January 28, 2016, and February 12, 2016, 

and sentenced Gooden to sixteen years for the criminal confinement conviction 

and fourteen years for the aggravated battery conviction, with those sentences 

to run consecutively, plus an additional twenty years for being an habitual 

offender. Gooden now appeals.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 15A01-1603-CR-593 | February 21, 2017 Page 4 of 5

Discussion and Decision

[6] Gooden argues that his convictions violate the prohibition against double 

jeopardy. Article 1, Section 14 of the Indiana Constitution provides, “No 

person shall be put in jeopardy twice for the same offense.” Our Supreme 

Court has explained that two or more offenses are the “same offense” 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). As long as “each conviction require[s] 

proof of at least one unique evidentiary fact,” no violation of the actual 

evidence test occurs. Bald v. State, 766 N.E.2d 1170, 1172 (Ind. 2002).

[7] A person commits Level 3 felony aggravated battery by knowingly or 

intentionally inflicting injury on a person that causes protracted loss or 

impairment of the function of a bodily member or organ. I.C. § 35-42-2-1.5(2). 

A person commits Level 3 felony criminal confinement by knowingly or 

intentionally confining another person, without that person’s consent, and 

causing a serious bodily injury. I.C. § 35-42-3-3(b)(2)(B). Here, the State 

presented evidence that Gooden choked Lunsford unconscious and then 

allowed her unconscious body to fall to the ground, where she chipped her 

teeth. Having completed that act, Gooden then dragged Lunsford by her ankles 

to the bedroom, where he immobilized her by sitting on top of her and choked 

her until she again lost consciousness at least two more times. Gooden 

committed two separate crimes, distinct in time, location, and evidence offered 
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 15A01-1603-CR-593 | February 21, 2017 Page 5 of 5

as proof. Accordingly, his convictions do not violate the “same offense” test, 

nor do they violate the prohibition against double jeopardy.

[8] Gooden also argues that “it was improper to give him consecutive sentences for 

the two offenses that were based upon the same factual storyline.” Appellant’s 

Br. p. 12. It is well settled that the trial court may consider whether terms of 

imprisonment shall be served concurrently or consecutively. Ind. Code § 35-50-

1-2. “[W]ith a few exceptions, it is within the trial court’s discretion whether to 

order sentences to be served concurrently or consecutively.” Myers v. State, 27 

N.E.3d 1069, 1082 (Ind. 2015).

[9] Gooden perpetrated a brutal assault on his girlfriend, which resulted in broken 

teeth, bruises, and multiple losses of consciousness. The trial court also noted 

that Gooden has a significant prior criminal history. We cannot say that the 

trial court erred by ordering Gooden’s sentences to run consecutively.

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

Mathias, J., and Pyle, J., concur.