Court Opinion

ID: 9897408
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-11-14 19:11:11.553848+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:15:45.541711
License: Public Domain

FILED
                                                                    May 08 2023, 8:40 am

                                                                         CLERK
                                                                     Indiana Supreme Court
                                                                        Court of Appeals
                                                                          and Tax Court

ATTORNEY FOR APPELLANT                                    ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE
Joel M. Schumm                                            Theodore E. Rokita
Indianapolis, Indiana                                     Attorney General of Indiana

                                                          Ian McLean
                                                          Supervising Deputy Attorney
                                                          General
                                                          Indianapolis, Indiana

                                            IN THE
    COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA

Devun York,                                               May 8, 2023
Appellant-Defendant,                                      Court of Appeals Case No.
                                                          22A-CR-2214
        v.
                                                          Appeal from the
State of Indiana,                                         Marion Superior Court
Appellee-Plaintiff.                                       The Honorable
                                                          Grant W. Hawkins, Judge

                                                          Trial Court Cause No.
                                                          49D31-2201-F5-2850

                              Opinion by Senior Judge Shepard
                               Judges Pyle and Tavitas concur.

Shepard, Senior Judge.

Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 22A-CR-2214 | May 8, 2023                              Page 1 of 9
[1]   Devun York challenges the trial court’s order denying his motion to dismiss a

      charge which alleged he was in possession of a machine gun in violation of

      Indiana Code section 35-47-5-8 (2014). In this interlocutory appeal, we are

      asked to determine whether: (1) the facts set forth in the charge constitute a

      crime; and, (2) whether the statute defining a machine gun is unconstitutionally

      vague under the United States and Indiana constitutions. We affirm.

      Facts and Procedural History
[2]   The facts as developed thus far reveal that on January 25, 2022, Indianapolis

      Metropolitan Police Department officers executed an arrest warrant for

      Anthony York on felony and misdemeanor charges in another case at the

      apartment where they believed Anthony was located. When they instructed the

      occupants to exit, Devun York and two other men came outside.

[3]   Officers heard water from a running shower and smelled the odor of burnt

      marijuana emanating from the apartment. They entered to determine if any

      other persons, including Anthony, remained in the apartment. When they saw

      evidence of drug use on a kitchen counter, they left the apartment and applied

      for a search warrant for drugs. While executing that warrant, they observed

      firearms, and they applied for another search warrant related to the firearms.

[4]   During the search for firearms, the detectives located a .9mm-caliber Glock 19

      pistol with a loaded magazine holding a total of twenty-two rounds of live

      ammunition underneath a mattress. One of the detectives, who is an ATF

      firearms liaison officer, saw the Glock had a device called a “switch” installed

      Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 22A-CR-2214 | May 8, 2023           Page 2 of 9
      on the rear of the pistol’s slide. App. Vol. II, p. 14. The “switch” converts the

      semiautomatic Glock 19 pistol to fire in a fully automatic mode. Id. Forensic

      testing of this Glock 19 pistol with “full auto device” was conducted “in both

      selective positions and resulted in full automatic fire in both.” Tr. Vol. II, p. 26;

      Exhibit Vol. I, p. 4, State’s Exhibit 1.

[5]   The State charged York on January 31, 2022 with one count of Level 5 felony

      possession of a machine gun, and one count of Class B misdemeanor

      possession of marijuana. York filed a motion to dismiss, and the court held a

      hearing on the motion. At the hearing, both parties stipulated that if the

      “switch” device was removed, the Glock 19 pistol would only fire semi-

      automatically and would not be a machine gun under Indiana law. Tr. Vol. II,

      pp. 26-27. The court denied York’s motion to dismiss, York moved to certify

      the court’s order for interlocutory appeal, and this appeal ensued.

      Discussion and Decision
      Standard of Review
[6]   The trial court denied York’s motion to dismiss, and we generally review that

      denial for an abuse of discretion. See Lebo v. State, 977 N.E.2d 1031 (Ind. Ct.

      App. 2012). However, this ruling on a motion to dismiss depends on questions

      of the constitutionality of a statute and statutory interpretation, both of which

      are questions of law we review under a de novo standard. See Church v. State,

      189 N.E.3d 580 (Ind. 2022).

      Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 22A-CR-2214 | May 8, 2023             Page 3 of 9
      I. Do the facts state a crime?
[7]   York was charged with Level 5 felony possession of a machine gun. Ind. Code

      § 35-47-5-8. “Machine gun” is statutorily defined as: “a weapon that: (1)

      shoots; or (2) can be readily restored to shoot; automatically more than one (1)

      shot, without manual reloading, by a single function of the trigger." Ind. Code

      § 35-31.5-2-190 (2012).

[8]   York says, “the facts alleged in the information—a handgun ‘equipped with a

      switch device’—do not constitute the offense of possession of a ‘machine gun.’”

      Appellant’s Br. p. 7. He observes that his Glock pistol is a “handgun” as

      defined by Indiana Code section 35-47-1-6 (1983), and that the Glock-switch

      device is classified as a “firearms accessory” by Indiana Code section 35-47-1-

      5.1 (2011), but argues “possessing a firearm with an accessory” is not a criminal

      offense. See Appellant’s Br. p. 10-11. He also argues that because the statutory

      definition of “machine gun” does not contain terms such as “adapt” or

      “convert” as used in the firearm and handgun statutes respectively, but, rather,

      includes language that it can be “readily restored,” the legislature did not intend

      for the definition of “machine gun” to include “devices that have been adapted

      or converted by accessories.” Appellant’s Br. p. 12.

[9]   We believe the straightforward language of Indiana Code section 35-31.5-2-190

      focuses on what the gun can do, and in this case, under subsection (1), the gun

      can shoot “automatically more than one (1) shot, without manual reloading, by

      a single function of the trigger.” Ind. Code §35-31.5-2-190. And we need not

      address York’s arguments under subsection (2) as the statute is written in the
      Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 22A-CR-2214 | May 8, 2023           Page 4 of 9
       disjunctive. Thus, we agree with the trial court’s conclusion that the charge

       states a crime.

       II. Vagueness Challenges Under the United States and
       Indiana Constitutions
       Standard of Review

[10]   A challenge to the validity of a statute must overcome a presumption that the

       statute is constitutional. State v. Lombardo, 738 N.E.2d 653 (Ind. 2000). The

       party challenging the statute has the burden of proving otherwise. Jackson v.

       State, 634 N.E.2d 532 (Ind. Ct. App. 1994).

[11]   The “analysis of a due process vagueness challenge under the Indiana

       Constitution and the U.S. Constitution is identical, and the Indiana courts rely

       on the same cases and standards in ruling on these challenges.” Whatley v.

       Zatecky, 833 F.3d 762, 771 (7th Cir. 2016) (citing e.g., Brown v. State, 868 N.E.2d
                              1
       464 (Ind. 2007)). “A criminal statute may be invalidated for vagueness for

       either of two independent reasons: (1) for failing to provide notice enabling

       ordinary people to understand the conduct that it prohibits, and (2) for the

       possibility that it authorizes or encourages arbitrary or discriminatory

       enforcement.” Brown, 868 N.E.2d at 467 (citing City of Chicago v. Morales, 527

       1
         Though Indiana courts consistently have analyzed Indiana constitutional vagueness claims under the same
       analysis as that used for the federal constitution, we acknowledge our Supreme Court’s observation in Tiplick
       v. State, 43 N.E.3d 1259 (Ind. 2015) that our Supreme Court “has never held that the same analysis applies to
       both.” 43 N.E.3d at 1262 n. 2 (emphasis added). And to the extent that York suggests that we should
       employ a “higher scrutiny” for his claim under our state constitution, we decline to do so in keeping with the
       line of state cases using the federal analysis for vagueness claims.

       Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 22A-CR-2214 | May 8, 2023                                    Page 5 of 9
       U.S. 41, 56 (1999)). Further, ‘“it is well established that vagueness challenges

       to statutes which do not involve First Amendment freedoms must be examined

       in the light of the facts of the case at hand.”’ Davis v. State, 476 N.E.2d 127, 130

       (Ind. Ct. App. 1985) (quoting U.S. v. Mazurie, 419 U.S. 544, 550 (1975)), trans.

       denied.

[12]   York presents arguments, citing both of the Brown decision’s independent

       reasons, as support for his claim that the machine gun statute is

       unconstitutionally vague. More specifically, he claims the language of the

       machine gun statute “is vague because ‘there must be something in a criminal

       statute to indicate where the line is to be drawn . . . . It cannot be left to juries,

       judges, and prosecutors to draw such lines.” Appellant’s Br. p. 15 (citing

       Brown, 868 N.E.2d 464 (quoting State v. Downey, 476 N.E.2d 121, 123 (Ind.

       1985) (emphasis added)). York also suggests that the statute allows “‘the

       possibility that it authorizes or encourages arbitrary or discriminatory

       enforcement,’” Appellant’s Br. pp. 15-16 (quoting Brown, 868 N.E.2d at 467),

       though he connects that claim with his notice argument and does not make a

       separate claim about discriminatory or arbitrary enforcement here.

[13]   The first Indiana case to address the possession of a Glock with a switch was

       A.W. v. State, 192 N.E.3d 227 (Ind. Ct. App. 2022), involving a different kind of

       facts from the present case, but addressing knowledge that the weapon was a

       machine gun. In A.W., the juvenile did not dispute his possession of the

       weapon; rather, he disputed his knowledge that it was a machine gun. The

       Glock in that case similarly had a switch attached that converted it from a
       Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 22A-CR-2214 | May 8, 2023               Page 6 of 9
       semiautomatic weapon to a machine gun. We held that knowledge and intent

       are mental states, and absent an admission by the defendant, are established by

       resort to reasonable inferences drawn from direct and circumstantial evidence.

       Id. at 231. In that case, the juvenile’s flight from law enforcement, led to the

       inference that he knew he was in possession of a machine gun, and on appeal,

       we declined to reweigh the evidence, affirming the adjudication. Id.

[14]   “A statute will not be found unconstitutionally vague if individuals of ordinary

       intelligence would comprehend it adequately to inform them of the proscribed

       conduct.” Lombardo, 738 N.E.2d at 656. Here, the machine gun statute, as

       examined in light of the facts of the case at hand, notifies the public and law

       enforcement officers that if a gun shoots “automatically more than one (1) shot,

       without manual reloading, by a single function of the trigger,” Ind. Code § 35-

       31.5-2-190, then it is a machine gun. Forensic testing of this particular gun

       established that the switch converts the semiautomatic Glock 19 pistol to fire in

       a fully automatic mode, or more than one shot without manual reloading when

       fired.

[15]   Further, though the argument presented on appeal is that there is a possibility of

       arbitrary or discriminatory enforcement of the machine gun statute, there is no

       discretion involved in this forensic determination, and its firing capability

       would be readily apparent to those in possession of a machine gun and to those

       enforcing the statute. And unlike the loitering statutes and ordinances at issue

       in Kolender v. Lawson, 461 U.S. 352 (1983) and City of Chicago v. Morales, 527

       U.S. 41 (1999), this statute provides both notice of the prohibited conduct and

       Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 22A-CR-2214 | May 8, 2023            Page 7 of 9
       guidance as to its enforcement. The gun either fires more than one shot

       automatically without reloading, or it does not. Thus, the statute sufficiently

       provided notice to York that the gun was a machine gun and forensic

       determinations are not discretionary determinations nor are they arbitrarily

       applied.

[16]   Additionally, York seems to argue that the statute is vague because it does not

       tell him that the use of firearms accessories to make a gun a machine gun is

       prohibited. Appellant’s Br. p. 15. However, the focus of the machine gun

       statute is on what the gun can do, not on how or when it is made. And Indiana

       Code section 35-31.5-2-190 makes clear that York’s gun was a machine gun.

       Thus, his comparison of the language in Indiana Code section 35-47-2-7(a)

       (2019), involving prohibited sale or transfer of ownership of handguns and

       machine guns, is inapposite.

[17]   Because we use the same analysis in determining whether the statute is vague

       under the federal and state constitutions, we conclude that York has not met his

       burden of overcoming the presumption that the machine gun statute is

       constitutional. The statute is not unconstitutionally vague.

       Conclusion
[18]   The trial court did not err by concluding that the facts of the case state a crime

       or by concluding that the machine gun statute is not impermissibly vague under

       the federal and state constitutions.

[19]   We affirm.
       Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 22A-CR-2214 | May 8, 2023            Page 8 of 9
Pyle, J., and Tavitas, J., concur.

Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 22A-CR-2214 | May 8, 2023   Page 9 of 9