Opinion ID: 853449
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: A Double Jeopardy Claim

Text: Mickens also argues that his convictions for murder and carrying a handgun without a license violate the Double Jeopardy Clause of the Indiana Constitution. We have held: [T]wo or more offenses are the same offense in violation of Article I, Section 14 of the Indiana Constitution, 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). Mickens concedes that the two convictions do not violate the statutory elements test. (Appellant's Br. at 11.) He contends instead that the same evidence was used to convict him of both charges, thereby contravening the actual evidence test. Under this test, the actual evidence presented at trial is examined to determine whether each challenged offense was established by separate and distinct facts. Richardson, 717 N.E.2d at 53. The defendant must demonstrate that there is a reasonable, not speculative or remote, possibility that the fact-finder used the same evidentiary facts to establish the essential elements of both offenses. Griffin v. State, 717 N.E.2d 73, 89 (Ind.1999), cert. denied, 530 U.S. 1247, 120 S.Ct. 2697, 147 L.Ed.2d 968 (2000). Mickens has failed to meet this burden. To prove the murder, the State demonstrated that Mickens caused Whitlow's death by shooting him two times with a handgun. It also showed that Mickens carried the gun as he approached Whitlow and Lewis. (R. at 185, 196, 201). Once the State proved that Mickens carried a handgun, the burden shifted to Mickens to provide proof that he possessed a valid license. Washington v. State, 517 N.E.2d 77 (Ind.1987). See also Ind.Code Ann. § 35-47-2-1 (West 1998). Mickens did not. This claim resembles the one addressed in Ho v. State, 725 N.E.2d 988 (Ind.Ct. App.2000). There, the Court of Appeals confronted a double jeopardy claim arising from a defendant's convictions for robbery and carrying a handgun without a license. Id. at 992. Like Mickens, Ho did not present evidence that he had a license for the handgun that he used to commit robbery. The court concluded that distinct evidentiary facts were used to prove that Ho committed robbery while armed with a handgun, while a lack of evidentiary facts was used to prove that Ho did not have a license to carry that handgun. Ho, 725 N.E.2d at 993. Consequently, the court held that Ho unsuccessfully demonstrated a reasonable possibility that the same evidentiary facts may have been used to establish the essential elements of each challenged offense. Id. This seems about right. Carrying the gun along the street was one crime and using it was another. The Richardson actual evidence test is not met, and we reject Mickens' double jeopardy claim.