Court Opinion

ID: 9897241
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-11-14 19:09:08.226129+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:15:41.251401
License: Public Domain

FILED
                                                                                Oct 30 2023, 9:10 am

                                                                                     CLERK
                                                                                 Indiana Supreme Court
                                                                                    Court of Appeals
                                                                                      and Tax Court

      ATTORNEY FOR APPELLANT                                     ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE
      Michael B. Troemel                                         Theodore E. Rokita
      Lafayette, Indiana                                         Attorney General of Indiana

      Brian A. Karle                                             Robert M. Yoke
      Ball Eggleston, PC                                         Deputy Attorney General
      Lafayette, Indiana                                         Indianapolis, Indiana

                                                  IN THE
          COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA

      Jennifer L. Dean,                                          October 30, 2023
      Appellant-Defendant,                                       Court of Appeals Case No.
                                                                 22A-CR-2104
              v.                                                 Appeal from the Carroll Circuit
                                                                 Court
      State of Indiana,                                          The Honorable Benjamin A.
      Appellee-Plaintiff.                                        Diener, Judge
                                                                 Trial Court Cause No.
                                                                 08C01-2107-MR-2

                                       Opinion by Judge Tavitas
                                    Judges May and Bradford concur.

      Tavitas, Judge.

      Case Summary
[1]   Jennifer Dean appeals her conviction for felony murder and her accompanying

      sentence of sixty years in the Department of Correction (“DOC”). Dean
      Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 22A-CR-2104 | October 30, 2023                               Page 1 of 26
      argues: (1) the trial court committed fundamental error during voir dire by

      endorsing eighty-percent certainty as a description of the reasonable doubt

      standard; (2) the State presented insufficient evidence to support Dean’s

      conviction for felony murder; and (3) Dean’s sentence is inappropriate. In the

      context of this case, we cannot say that the trial court’s remark on the

      reasonable doubt standard during voir dire constitutes fundamental error, and

      we find Dean’s remaining arguments without merit. Accordingly, we affirm. 1

      Issues
[2]   Dean raises three issues on appeal, which we restate as:

              I.       Whether the trial court committed fundamental error
                       during voir dire by endorsing eighty-percent certainty as a
                       description of the reasonable doubt standard.

              II.      Whether the State presented sufficient evidence to support
                       Dean’s conviction for felony murder.

              III.     Whether Dean’s sentence is inappropriate.

      Facts
[3]   In June 2021, Tyrone Leftridge, Shianne Brooks-Brown, and Shianne’s

      daughter were living with Dean at Dean’s house in Flora, Indiana. Shianne

      had known Dean since she was three years old and referred to Dean as her

      1
        We held oral argument on October 10, 2023, at Mishawaka High School. We thank the students and staff
      for their warm reception and hospitality, and we commend counsel for their advocacy.

      Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 22A-CR-2104 | October 30, 2023                        Page 2 of 26
      “mom.” Tr. Vol. IV p. 103. Shianne has a learning disability, “struggle[s]”

      with remembering things, and has an eleventh-grade education. Id. at 200.

[4]   Shianne previously lived with Dean, and at one point, Dean “coordinat[ed]” or

      “assist[ed]” in Shianne’s participation in prostitution on a “weekly basis” over a

      two-year period. Tr. Vol. V p. 12. Dean kept all the money Shianne made

      from the prostitution. On several occasions, “the plan would change from sex .

      . . to just taking the money.” Tr. Vol. IV p. 233.

[5]   This case concerns a conspiracy formed between Tyrone, Shianne, and Dean

      on the night of June 15, 2021. The evidence regarding which co-conspirator

      was responsible for which particular act occasionally conflicts.

[6]   The conspiracy began when Tyrone, Shianne, Dean, or some combination

      proposed a plan to use Shianne’s profile on the MeetMe dating app to lure an

      individual with the prospect of exchanging $120 for sex with Shianne. There

      was conflicting evidence regarding whether the original plan was for Shianne to

      engage in prostitution or for Tyrone and Shianne to rob the individual. Dean

      initially suggested a trailer park as a location for the meeting, but the

      conspirators later decided that the meeting would instead occur in a nearby

      alley. Dean would receive $20 for watching Shianne’s daughter while Tyrone

      and Shianne met the individual.

[7]   Dean also provided Tyrone with a bandana and either Shianne or Tyrone with

      a small baseball bat, which Dean kept in her home for “protection.” Tr. Vol.

      III p. 143. A photograph of the bat is shown below:

      Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 22A-CR-2104 | October 30, 2023        Page 3 of 26
      Ex. 23. Willie Smith, Jr., responded to the MeetMe solicitation and met

      Shianne in the alley sometime between 1:00 a.m. and 3:00 a.m. on July 16,

      2021. Tyrone hid behind a nearby detached garage. Shianne did not have sex

      with Willie, and at some point, Willie exited the vehicle and pulled out a

      pocketknife. Either Shianne or Tyrone struck Willie on the head with the bat.

      Willie fell to the ground, where he was struck several more times.

[8]   Shianne and Tyrone returned to Dean’s house with the bat along with $120 and

      Willie’s cellphone and wallet. Shianne told Dean to contact the police because

      “a man . . . was hurt”; however, Dean refused. Tr. Vol. IV p. 150. Dean

      instructed Tyrone to “get rid of the evidence” and “bleach the bat.” Id. at 146.

      Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 22A-CR-2104 | October 30, 2023    Page 4 of 26
[9]    Meanwhile, Willie left the alley and entered a nearby house. At approximately

       5:10 a.m., the owners discovered Willie lying on their couch and contacted the

       police. Flora Police Department Chief James Bishop responded to the scene

       and “noticed there was substantial trauma to [Willie’s] face” and that Willie

       “would only moan” when spoken to. Tr. Vol. III p. 61. Willie later died from

       his injuries.

[10]   Chief Bishop, who was familiar with Dean, went to Dean’s house, showed

       Dean a photograph of the injured Willie, and asked her if she “was familiar

       [with] or knew” Willie. Id. at 64. Dean denied that she did. Law enforcement

       located Willie’s vehicle soon thereafter. Inside, law enforcement located a

       receipt for an ATM withdrawal of $120 from 1:05 a.m. that morning. Law

       enforcement also located surveillance camera footage captured at 2:39 a.m. that

       morning, which depicted Tyrone, dressed in all black, leaving Dean’s house

       with a bag and then returning without the bag. The footage then showed

       Tyrone leaving the house in different clothing.

[11]   Later that morning, law enforcement stopped Tyrone and Shianne as they were

       packing up a car in front of Dean’s house. The officers recognized Tyrone from

       the surveillance footage and observed $100 in “crisp, fresh” $20 bills in the

       cubby of the door by Tyrone. Id. at 137. Tyrone was interviewed, and law

       enforcement determined they had probable cause to arrest him. He was

       brought to the Carroll County Jail.

       Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 22A-CR-2104 | October 30, 2023     Page 5 of 26
[12]   While he was in jail, Tyrone spoke on the phone and exchanged text messages

       with K.C., the mother of his daughter. During these conversations, Tyrone

       stated the following: “I[’]m pretty sure the truth will come out and they will

       only get me for robby [sic, robbery],” Ex. Vol. VII p. 46, and, “The full story

       [is] shy and jen [Shianne and Dean] plan[ned] on getting money[,] and [W]ill

       wasn’t the only 1[.] [Dean] pick[ed] the location where there [were] no

       cam[eras] bc she live[d] there for a long time . . . ,” id. at 107. Tyrone also

       texted Willie’s family, “I just want the truth to come out[.] [I] was acomoles

       [sic, accomplice] of robby [sic, robbery]. . . .” Id. at 52 (errors in original).

[13]   Over the course of the investigation, law enforcement learned that Shianne had

       two cellphones and that “there was a gap of information missing” from

       approximately 8:00 p.m. on June 15, 2021, to 4:00 a.m. on June 16, 2021, on

       one of her phones. Tr. Vol. V p. 38. Additionally, two days after the robbery,

       Dean contacted law enforcement and reported that she found a wallet in her

       living room but that she did not know to whom it belonged.

[14]   In speaking with law enforcement, Dean and Shianne each changed their story

       several times. Dean initially reported that she was not involved in any criminal

       activity but admitted that she received $20 from Tyrone and provided the bat

       and bandana. Dean eventually told law enforcement that “Tyrone was the one

       who said he was gonna rob [Willie].” Ex. 37 at 1:35. Shianne and Dean were

       subsequently arrested. On July 14, 2021, the State charged Dean with two

       counts: Count I, felony murder; and Count II, conspiracy to commit robbery

       resulting in serious bodily injury, a Level 2 felony.

       Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 22A-CR-2104 | October 30, 2023         Page 6 of 26
[15]   While Dean and Shianne were in jail, Dean encouraged Shianne to “change

       [Shianne’s] story so [Dean] could get out.” Ex. 35 at 35:49. Dean also wrote

       letters to Shianne, one of which said, “[Y]ou asked me to watch [your

       daughter] so yall could go meet someone down the road—finesse someone—

       that don’t mean to hurt anyone . . . .” Ex. Vol. VII p. 220 (errors in original).

[16]   A jury trial was held in April 2022. During voir dire, the trial court instructed

       the prospective jurors on the reasonable doubt standard as follows:

               [U]nder the law of this state, proof beyond a reasonable doubt is
               proof that leaves you firmly convinced of the Defendant’s guilt.

               There are very few things in this world that we know with
               absolute certainty, and in criminal cases the law does not require
               proof that overcomes every possible doubt. If, based on your
               consideration of the evidence, you are firmly convinced that the
               Defendant is guilty of the crime charged, you may find him or
               her guilty. If, on the other hand, you think there is a real
               possibility that the Defendant is not guilty, you should give the
               Defendant the benefit of the doubt and find the Defendant not
               guilty.

       Tr. Vol. II p. 47.

[17]   Later during voir dire, the following exchange took place:

               [DEFENSE COUNSEL]: [P]roof beyond a reasonable doubt,
               how powerful is that proof? How powerful does it need to be to
               reach that level?

               PROSPECTIVE JUROR MARTIN: Well, I - in my opinion, I’d
               say if on the scale from like 1 to 20, it’d have to be 16.

       Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 22A-CR-2104 | October 30, 2023        Page 7 of 26
               [DEFENSE COUNSEL]: Okay. How’d you get to that?

               THE COURT: It’s perfect, 80 percent. I mean, he nailed it.

       Id. at 95 (emphasis added). Neither the State nor Dean objected to or

       commented on the trial court’s spontaneous remark, and Prospective Juror

       Martin was not selected to serve on the jury. Several times during voir dire, the

       State described the reasonable doubt standard as requiring proof that leaves one

       “[f]irmly convinced” of the defendant’s guilt, and the prospective jurors pledged

       to apply that standard. Tr. Vol. II p. 63.

[18]   After the jury was selected, the trial court gave the following preliminary

       instruction:

               [T]he evidence must overcome any reasonable doubt concerning
               the Defendant’s guilt, but it does not mean that a Defendant’s
               guilt must be proved beyond all possible doubt. A reasonable
               doubt is a fair, actual, and logical doubt based upon reason and
               common sense. A reasonable doubt may arise either from the
               evidence or from a lack of evidence. Reasonable doubt exists
               when you are not firmly convinced of the Defendant’s guilt after
               you have weighed and considered all the evidence.

               The Defendant must not be convicted on suspicion or
               speculation. It is not enough for the State to show that the
               Defendant is probably guilty. On the other hand, there are very
               few things in this world that we know with absolute certainty.
               The State does not have to overcome every possible doubt. The
               State must prove each element of the crime by evidence that
               firmly convinces each of you and leaves no reasonable doubt.
               The proof must be so convincing that you can rely and act upon
               it in this matter of the highest importance. If you find that there
               is a reasonable doubt that the Defendant is guilty of the crime,
       Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 22A-CR-2104 | October 30, 2023          Page 8 of 26
                  you must give the Defendant the benefit of that doubt and find
                  the Defendant not guilty of the crime under consideration.

       Tr. Vol. III p. 47. The trial court used the same language when delivering the

       final jury instructions. The trial court also instructed the jury that “[t]he Court’s

       instructions are your best source in determining the law.” Tr. Vol. V p. 185.

[19]   During the jury trial, Tyrone and Shianne both testified. Tyrone testified that

       the plan was only for Shianne to exchange sex for money. He explained that he

       described the plan as one for robbery in his jail conversations with K.C. because

       he “was mad” and “thought that [Dean] was trying to set [him] up . . . .” Tr.

       Vol. IV p. 71.

[20]   Shianne had trouble understanding the questions and recalling certain events.

       She testified that Dean “helped plan” the events on the night of June 15, 2020,

       but she gave conflicting responses regarding whether the original plan was for

       robbery or prostitution. Id. at 201.

[21]   The jury found Dean guilty of both counts, and the trial court entered judgment

       of conviction on Count I. 2 The trial court held a sentencing hearing on August

       3, 2022. The trial court found Dean’s criminal history to be an aggravating

       factor, found no mitigators, and sentenced Dean to sixty years in the DOC.

       Dean now appeals.

       2
           The trial court dismissed Count II due to double jeopardy concerns.

       Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 22A-CR-2104 | October 30, 2023        Page 9 of 26
       Discussion
       I. Fundamental Error—Reasonable Doubt

[22]   Dean first challenges the trial court’s spontaneous remark during voir dire, “It’s

       perfect, 80 percent. I mean, he nailed it,” in reference to the reasonable doubt

       standard. Tr. Vol. II p. 95. Dean argues that the trial court’s remark is “in the

       nature of a court instruction” and, recognizing that Dean did not object to the

       remark at trial, argues that the remark amounts to fundamental error that

       violated her due process rights. Appellant’s Br. p. 25. We find that, although

       the trial court’s remark was clearly improper, it does not constitute fundamental

       error under the circumstances of this case.

[23]   Our Indiana Supreme Court has explained:

               The Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment protects
               an accused “against conviction except upon proof beyond a
               reasonable doubt of every fact necessary to constitute the crime
               with which he is charged.” In re Winship, 397 U.S. 358, 364, 90
               S. Ct. 1068, 1073 (1970). Because of the transcending interest a
               criminal defendant has in his liberty, the risk of an erroneous
               conviction necessitates that a substantial burden of proof be
               placed upon the prosecution. See Speiser v. Randall, 357 U.S. 513,
               525-26, 78 S. Ct. 1332, 1342 (1958). The standard of proof
               beyond a reasonable doubt serves to impress upon the fact-finder
               “the need to reach a subjective state of near certitude of the guilt
               of the accused.” Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307, 315, 99 S. Ct.
               2781, 2787 (1979). While the federal constitution requires that
               juries be instructed “on the necessity that the defendant’s guilt be
               proven beyond a reasonable doubt,” it does not require the use of
               “any particular form of words.” Victor v. Nebraska, 511 U.S. 1, 5,
               114 S. Ct. 1239, 1243 [] (1994). However, the jury instructions,

       Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 22A-CR-2104 | October 30, 2023      Page 10 of 26
               taken as a whole, must correctly express “the concept of
               reasonable doubt to the jury.” Id.

       Winegeart v. State, 665 N.E.2d 893, 896 (Ind. 1996). Ultimately, “[t]he proper

       constitutional inquiry is not whether the instruction could have been applied in

       an unconstitutional manner, but whether there is a reasonable likelihood that

       the jury did so apply it.” Id. at 897 (quoting Victor, 511 U.S. at 6) (emphasis in

       original; internal quotation marks omitted).

[24]   Turning to Dean’s argument, courts discourage attempts to quantify the

       reasonable doubt standard. See, e.g., United States v. Smith, 267 F.3d 1154, 1161

       (D.C. Cir. 2001) (observing that the phrase ‘proof beyond a reasonable doubt’ is

       “quantitively imprecise” (citing Winship, 397 U.S. at 370) (Harlan, J.,

       concurring); Lord v. State, 806 P.2d 548, 552 (Nev. 1991) (“Parties to a criminal

       case should assiduously avoid . . . attempts to quantify the concept of

       reasonable doubt.”); see generally Peter Tillers & Jonathan Gottfried, Case

       Comment—United States v. Copeland, 369 F. Supp.2d 275 (E.D.N.Y. 2005): A

       Collateral Attack on the Legal Maxim that Proof beyond a Reasonable Doubt Is

       Unquantifiable?, 5 Law, Probability, and Risk 135, 135 (2006) (observing

       “[a]ppellate courts have condemned such attempts at quantification of

       reasonable doubt whenever they have encountered them” and collecting cases).

[25]   At the same time, attempts to quantify the reasonable doubt standard typically

       will not result in reversal when the trial court otherwise properly instructs the

       jury on reasonable doubt. For example, in Adcock v. State:

       Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 22A-CR-2104 | October 30, 2023      Page 11 of 26
               During voir dire, the prosecutor analogized the case to a twenty-
               piece jigsaw puzzle that was missing two pieces to highlight the
               difference between “beyond a reasonable doubt and beyond all
               possible doubt.” More specifically, the prosecutor asked one
               potential juror: “I put the jigsaw puzzle together and it’s missing
               a few pieces, two (2) pieces . . . . [W]ithin my jigsaw puzzle you
               can still see what the picture is supposed to be, is that the same as
               beyond a reasonable doubt or is that beyond all possible
               doubt?” The prosecutor posed additional questions and
               explained that the purpose of the jigsaw puzzle analogy was that
               “if you have the whole puzzle that would be proof beyond all
               possible doubt because you could see the whole picture. I just
               wanted to make sure that you weren’t going to hold me to that
               higher burden.”

       933 N.E.2d 21, 25 (Ind. Ct. App. 2010) (record citations omitted), trans. denied.

[26]   On appeal, the defendant, Adcock, argued that the prosecutor’s puzzle analogy

       constituted fundamental error. Id. at 26. A panel of this Court cautioned that

       the prosecutor’s use of the analogy was “dangerous and unwise,” id. at 28 n.6;

       however, the Court held that the prosecutor’s statements did not constitute

       fundamental error because “Adcock was afforded the opportunity to rebut the

       prosecutor’s analogy and the trial court provided the jury with a detailed

       instruction that contained the correct definition of reasonable doubt and the

       State’s burden of proof.” Id. at 28.

[27]   Adcock concerned a statement made by a prosecutor. The issue of whether a

       trial court’s own attempts to quantify the reasonable doubt standard violates the

       defendant’s due process rights appears to be an issue of first impression for

       Indiana courts. Nonetheless, courts from other jurisdictions have generally

       Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 22A-CR-2104 | October 30, 2023       Page 12 of 26
       applied similar principles and have held that the trial court’s attempts at

       quantification are not grounds for reversal when the trial court later properly

       instructs the jury on the reasonable doubt standard before the jury reaches a

       verdict. For example, in Petrocelli v. Angelone, 248 F.3d 877 (9th Cir. 2001),

       Petrocelli petitioned for a writ of habeas corpus on the grounds that the State

       trial court judge violated Petrocelli’s due process rights during voir dire by

       stating to the jury:

               Now in a civil case . . . it’s kind of a 50/50 proposition. But
               there is no 60/40, 70/30, 90/10 proposition in proving a case by
               a certain amount of evidence in a criminal case, because the
               burden, the standard is beyond a reasonable doubt . . . . Some
               people say you have got to be convinced, and then others use,
               sports minded, use a kind of athletic football field, getting to
               the 97 yard line. There are all kinds of ways to say it, but it is
               being strongly convinced of the Defendant’s guilt, or else he is
               acquitted.

       Id. at 888 (emphasis added).

[28]   On appeal, the Court held that the trial court’s statement did not violate

       Petrocelli’s due process rights because “even if the judge improperly advised the

       jury by quantifying the level of doubt in petitioner’s case, the judge, during voir

       dire and in his closing instructions to the jury, gave a proper reasonable doubt

       instruction.” Id. The court noted that “‘[b]ecause the trial judge used the

       correct instruction at the end of trial and because the correct instruction was the

       only instruction given to the jury to take with them to the jury room, it [should

       be] presumed that the jury followed the correct instruction.” Id. at 888-89

       Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 22A-CR-2104 | October 30, 2023      Page 13 of 26
       (quoting Guam v. Ignacio, 852 F.2d 459, 461 (9th Cir. 1988)). As relevant here,

       the Court also noted that the trial court’s “remark was not made as an

       instruction, but as an explanation during voir dire to see if the jurors could

       apply the burden.” Id. at 889 (emphasis added); cf. Commonwealth v. Rosa, 661

       N.E.2d 56, 64 (Mass. 1996) (trial court’s supplemental instruction that

       analogized completing 940 pieces of a 1000-piece puzzle and being able to infer

       the puzzle’s complete image with being able to use circumstantial evidence to

       infer a fact was not reversible error when “a reasonable juror would have

       separated the circumstantial evidence instruction from the entirely correct, and

       subsequently given, definition of reasonable doubt”). In essence, an isolated,

       improper description of the reasonable doubt standard might be curable by

       subsequent proper instructions.

[29]   On the other hand, an improper instruction on the reasonable doubt standard is

       more likely to constitute reversible error when it is given close in time to jury

       deliberation and not cured by a subsequent instruction. See, e.g., Sullivan v.

       Louisiana, 508 U.S. 275, 278-82 (1993) (trial court’s erroneous final instruction

       on proof beyond a reasonable doubt required reversal); Commonwealth v.

       Sullivan, 482 N.E.2d 1198, 1199, 1201 (Mass. App. Ct. 1985) (holding that trial

       court’s supplemental instruction defining the reasonable doubt standard as

       “above fifty percent” given during the third day of deliberation constituted

       reversible error and observing that the erroneous instruction “was among the

       last impressions left on the minds of the jurors”).

       Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 22A-CR-2104 | October 30, 2023      Page 14 of 26
[30]   First, whether or not the trial court’s remark constitutes a jury instruction, it

       was clearly improper. The reasonable doubt standard is not amenable to

       quantification. Whether the strength of the evidence is sufficient to convince a

       juror of the defendant’s guilt beyond a reasonable doubt and whether the

       evidence is sufficient to convince a jury beyond a certain numerical threshold

       are two separate and distinct concepts, and the latter cannot be substituted for

       the former in a criminal trial. By endorsing eighty-percent certainty as a

       description of the reasonable doubt standard here, the trial court misinformed

       the jury on one of the most critical protections our Constitution provides for the

       criminally accused. We, thus, caution our trial courts to avoid attempting to

       quantify the reasonable doubt standard—period.

[31]   The trial court’s remark, however, does not automatically require reversal.

       Dean must persuade us that the remark constitutes fundamental error.

       Fundamental error “occurs only when the error ‘makes a fair trial impossible or

       constitutes clearly blatant violations of basic and elementary principles of due

       process presenting an undeniable and substantial potential for harm.’” Strack v.

       State, 186 N.E.3d 99, 103 (Ind. 2022) (quoting Clark v. State, 915 N.E.2d 126,

       131 (Ind. 2009)). It is an “extremely narrow doctrine.” Isom v. State, 170

       N.E.3d 623, 651 (Ind. 2021).

[32]   Here, we cannot say that the error is fundamental. The trial court’s remark was

       an isolated event during the voir dire stage of an eight-day jury trial. At all

       other points, the trial court properly instructed the jury on the reasonable doubt

       standard, including at the most critical juncture—immediately before

       Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 22A-CR-2104 | October 30, 2023       Page 15 of 26
       deliberation. The prospective juror who was being examined at the time the

       trial court made the remark was not selected to serve on the jury. The State

       also repeatedly impressed upon the jury that it needed to be firmly convinced of

       Dean’s guilt. Finally, although the remark was erroneous because it attempted

       to quantify the reasonable doubt standard, nothing suggests that the jury failed

       to hold the State to its burden of proof. See Winegeart, 665 N.E.2d at 897

       (requiring “a reasonable likelihood” that the jury misapplied the reasonable

       doubt standard). The trial court should not have attempted to quantify the

       reasonable doubt standard; however, in the context of the entire trial, we cannot

       say that the trial court’s remark rises to the level of fundamental error.

       II. Sufficiency of the Evidence

[33]   Dean next argues that the State presented insufficient evidence to support her

       conviction for felony murder. We are not persuaded. Sufficiency of evidence

       claims “warrant a deferential standard, in which we neither reweigh the

       evidence nor judge witness credibility.” Powell v. State, 151 N.E.3d 256, 262

       (Ind. 2020) (citing Perry v. State, 638 N.E.2d 1236, 1242 (Ind. 1994)). “When

       there are conflicts in the evidence, the jury must resolve them.” Young v. State,

       198 N.E.3d 1172, 1176 (Ind. 2022). We consider only the evidence supporting

       the judgment and any reasonable inferences drawn from that evidence. Powell,

       151 N.E.3d at 262 (citing Brantley v. State, 91 N.E.3d 566, 570 (Ind. 2018), cert.

       denied). “We will affirm a conviction if there is substantial evidence of

       probative value that would lead a reasonable trier of fact to conclude that the

       defendant was guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.” Id. at 263. We affirm the

       Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 22A-CR-2104 | October 30, 2023         Page 16 of 26
       conviction “unless no reasonable fact-finder could find the elements of the

       crime proven beyond a reasonable doubt. It is therefore not necessary that the

       evidence overcome every reasonable hypothesis of innocence. The evidence is

       sufficient if an inference may reasonably be drawn from it to support the

       verdict.” Sutton v. State, 167 N.E.3d 800, 801 (Ind. Ct. App. 2021) (quoting

       Drane v. State, 867 N.E.2d 144, 146-47 (Ind. 2007)).

       A. Robbery

[34]   Dean first challenges the sufficiency of the evidence to support a finding that

       she was an accomplice to robbery. 3 Robbery is defined by Indiana Code

       Section 35-42-5-1(a), which provides, in pertinent part:

               [A] person who knowingly or intentionally takes property from
               another person or from the presence of another person:

                    (1) by using or threatening the use of force on any person; or

                    (2) by putting any person in fear;

               commits robbery. . . .

[35]   Dean need not have personally committed the robbery to be guilty of the same

       under the theory of accomplice liability. Hall v. State, 177 N.E.3d 1183, 1191

       (Ind. 2021); see Ind. Code § 35-41-2-4 (“A person who knowingly or

       3
         Though Dean was not charged with robbery, robbery may still serve as the predicate offense for her felony
       murder conviction. See Snodgrass v. State, 406 N.E.2d 641, 643 (Ind. 1980) (holding that underlying felony
       need not be separately charged because felony murder charge “necessarily charges . . . the underlying
       felony”).

       Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 22A-CR-2104 | October 30, 2023                           Page 17 of 26
       intentionally aids, induces, or causes another person to commit an offense

       commits that offense . . . .”). “‘[A]n accomplice is criminally responsible for all

       acts committed by a confederate which are a probable and natural consequence

       of their concerted action.’” Forney v. State, 742 N.E.2d 934, 938 (Ind. 2001)

       (quoting McGee v. State, 699 N.E.2d 264, 265 (Ind. 1998)). In determining

       whether a person was an accomplice to robbery, we consider several factors,

       most significantly here, the defendant’s “course of conduct before, during, and

       after the offense.” Parrish v. State, 166 N.E.3d 953, 959 (Ind. Ct. App. 2021)

       (citing Griffin v. State, 16 N.E.3d 997, 1004 (Ind. Ct. App. 2014)), trans. denied.

[36]   Here, the State presented evidence that Dean helped plan the robbery, identified

       a location in which to commit the robbery, provided the bat and bandana,

       helped cover up the evidence, lied to police, and encouraged Shianne to lie as

       well. We find this evidence sufficient to support a finding that Dean was an

       accomplice to the robbery. Dean’s argument that “the only plan was for

       Shianne [] to exchange sex for money,” Appellant’s Br. p. 30, merely requests

       that we reweigh the evidence, which we cannot do. 4

       4
         Dean also argues that Tyrone’s and Shianne’s testimony was incredible regarding who was responsible for
       the robbery and killing and, as a result, the incredible dubiosity rule applies. “Under the incredible dubiosity
       rule, a court will impinge upon the jury’s responsibility to judge the credibility of witnesses only when
       confronted with inherently improbable testimony or coerced, equivocal, wholly uncorroborated testimony of
       incredible dubiosity.” Murray v. State, 761 N.E.2d 406, 408 (Ind. 2002). Application of the incredible
       dubiosity rule requires that there be: “1) a sole testifying witness; 2) testimony that is inherently
       contradictory, equivocal, or the result of coercion; and 3) a complete absence of circumstantial evidence.”
       Moore v. State, 27 N.E.3d 749, 756 (Ind. 2015). Here, Dean’s conviction was based on the testimony of
       multiple witnesses and several items of circumstantial evidence. The incredible dubiosity rule, thus, does not
       apply.

       Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 22A-CR-2104 | October 30, 2023                              Page 18 of 26
       B. Felony murder

[37]   Dean next argues that the evidence is insufficient to trigger the felony murder

       doctrine. Indiana Code Section 35-42-1-1(2) provides that a person who:

                kills another human being while committing or attempting to
                commit arson, burglary, child molesting, consumer product
                tampering, criminal deviate conduct (under IC 35-42-4-2 before
                its repeal), kidnapping, rape, robbery, human trafficking,
                promotion of human labor trafficking, promotion of human
                sexual trafficking, promotion of child sexual trafficking,
                promotion of sexual trafficking of a younger child, child sexual
                trafficking, or carjacking (before its repeal);

                                                         *****

                commits murder, a felony.

       (Emphasis added). “A felony murder conviction requires proof of intent to

       commit the underlying felony but not of intent to kill.” Glenn v. State, 884

       N.E.2d 347, 355 (Ind. Ct. App. 2008) (citing Luna v. State, 758 N.E.2d 515, 517

       (Ind. 2001)), trans. denied. “Furthermore, a person is subject to conviction for

       felony murder based on accomplice liability for the underlying offense,” id.

       (citing Luna, 758 N.E.2d at 517), and the convicted person need not be the

       killer, 5 Layman v. State, 42 N.E.3d 972, 977 (Ind. 2015). Rather, what matters is

       whether the accused “reasonably should have foreseen that his felonious

       5
        Our Supreme Court has held that “the statutory language ‘kills another human being while committing’
       does not restrict the felony murder provision only to instances in which the felon is the killer, but may also
       apply equally when, in committing any of the designated felonies, the felon contributes to the death of any
       person.” Jenkins v. State, 726 N.E.2d 268, 269 (Ind. 2000).

       Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 22A-CR-2104 | October 30, 2023                               Page 19 of 26
       conduct would result in the ‘mediate or immediate cause’ of the victim’s

       death.” Id. (quoting Palmer v. State, 704 N.E.2d 124, 126 (Ind. 1999)).

[38]   Here, as we have explained, the State presented sufficient evidence that Dean

       was an accomplice to robbery, which is a predicate offense to felony murder.

       The State also presented evidence that the plan was to lure Willie with the

       prospect of sex with Shianne and then rob Willie. Dean provided Tyrone with

       a bandana and either Shianne or Tyrone with the bat.

[39]   Dean relies on Layman, 42 N.E.3d 972, which we find distinguishable. In that

       case, the defendants, Laymen and Sparks, and several others conspired to

       burglarize a house that they believed was unoccupied. Id. at 974.

       Unbeknownst to the conspirators, the owner of the house was asleep, and when

       the burglars kicked in the back door, the owner awoke and began shooting a

       firearm. Id. Two of the conspirators were shot, and one was killed. Id. The

       State charged Layman and Sparks (and the others) with felony murder, and the

       jury found them guilty. Id.

[40]   On appeal, our Supreme Court reversed Layman’s and Sparks’s convictions for

       felony murder. The Court held that “when the group broke and entered the

       residence of the homeowner intending to commit a theft—a burglary—not only

       were they unarmed, but also neither the Appellants nor their cohorts engaged in

       any ‘dangerously violent and threatening conduct.’” Id. at 979 (quoting Jenkins

       v. State, 726 N.E.2d 268, 271 (Ind. 2000)). Accordingly, the Court agreed with

       the defendants that the death of their co-conspirator “was not reasonably

       Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 22A-CR-2104 | October 30, 2023      Page 20 of 26
       foreseeable” and found “[t]here was simply nothing about the Appellants’

       conduct or the conduct of their cohorts that was ‘clearly the mediate or

       immediate cause’ of their friend’s death.” Id. at 979-80 (quoting Palmer, 704 at

       126).

[41]   Dean argues, with little explanation, that, as in Layman, the robbery here was

       not foreseeable. Unlike Layman, however, where the defendants were

       unarmed, Dean provided Tyrone and Shianne with the bat and bandana. It

       was reasonably foreseeable that the bat could be used in a violent manner, and

       in fact, it was. Accordingly, the felony murder doctrine is applicable, and the

       State presented sufficient evidence to support Dean’s conviction.

       III. Inappropriate Sentence

[42]   Dean’s final argument is that her sentence of sixty years is inappropriate.

       Again, we are not persuaded. The Indiana Constitution authorizes

       independent appellate review and revision of a trial court’s sentencing

       decision. See Ind. Const. art. 7, §§ 4, 6; Jackson v. State, 145 N.E.3d 783, 784

       (Ind. 2020). Our Supreme Court has implemented this authority through

       Indiana Appellate Rule 7(B), which allows this Court to revise a sentence when

       it is “inappropriate in light of the nature of the offense and the character of the

       offender.” 6 Our review of a sentence under Appellate Rule 7(B) is not an act of

       6
        Though we must consider both the nature of the offense and the character of the offender, an appellant need
       not prove that each prong independently renders a sentence inappropriate. See, e.g., State v. Stidham, 157
       N.E.3d 1185, 1195 (Ind. 2020) (granting a sentence reduction based solely on an analysis of aspects of the

       Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 22A-CR-2104 | October 30, 2023                          Page 21 of 26
       second guessing the trial court’s sentence; rather, “[o]ur posture on appeal is [ ]

       deferential” to the trial court. Bowman v. State, 51 N.E.3d 1174, 1181 (Ind.

       2016) (citing Rice v. State, 6 N.E.3d 940, 946 (Ind. 2014)). We exercise our

       authority under Appellate Rule 7(B) only in “exceptional cases, and its exercise

       ‘boils down to our collective sense of what is appropriate.’” Mullins v. State, 148

       N.E.3d 986, 987 (Ind. 2020) (per curiam) (quoting Faith v. State, 131 N.E.3d

       158, 160 (Ind. 2019)).

[43]   “‘The principal role of appellate review is to attempt to leaven the outliers.’”

       McCain v. State, 148 N.E.3d 977, 985 (Ind. 2020) (quoting Cardwell v. State, 895

       N.E.2d 1219, 1225 (Ind. 2008)). The point is “not to achieve a perceived

       correct sentence.” Id. “Whether a sentence should be deemed inappropriate

       ‘turns on our sense of the culpability of the defendant, the severity of the crime,

       the damage done to others, and myriad other factors that come to light in a

       given case.’” Id. (quoting Cardwell, 895 N.E.2d at 1224). Deference to the trial

       court’s sentence “should prevail unless overcome by compelling evidence

       portraying in a positive light the nature of the offense (such as accompanied by

       restraint, regard, and lack of brutality) and the defendant’s character (such as

       substantial virtuous traits or persistent examples of good character).” Stephenson

       v. State, 29 N.E.3d 111, 122 (Ind. 2015). When determining whether a sentence

       is inappropriate, the advisory sentence is the starting point the legislature has

       defendant’s character); Connor v. State, 58 N.E.3d 215, 219 (Ind. Ct. App. 2016); see also Davis v. State, 173
       N.E.3d 700, 707-09 (Ind. Ct. App. 2021) (Tavitas, J., concurring in result).

       Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 22A-CR-2104 | October 30, 2023                                Page 22 of 26
       selected as an appropriate sentence for the crime committed. Fuller v. State, 9

       N.E.3d 653, 657 (Ind. 2014).

[44]   In the case at bar, Dean was convicted of felony murder. Indiana Code Section

       35-50-2-3 sets the sentencing range for murder between forty-five and sixty-five

       years, with the advisory sentence set at fifty-five years. Dean was sentenced to

       sixty years in the DOC.

       A. Nature of the Offense

[45]   Our analysis of the “nature of the offense” requires us to look at the nature,

       extent, heinousness, and brutality of the offense. See Brown v. State, 10 N.E.3d

       1, 5 (Ind. 2014). Dean contends that her sentence is inappropriate because she

       neither intended nor foresaw the death of the victim. Dean, however, helped

       plan the robbery, provided the bat and bandana, helped cover up the evidence,

       lied to police, and encouraged Shianne to lie as well. Additionally, Shianne

       testified that Dean has a history of manipulating Shianne into committing

       prostitution and robbery, and this offense appears to be a continuation of that

       exploitative conduct. We cannot say that Dean’s sentence is inappropriate in

       light of the nature of the offense.

       B. Character of the Offender

[46]   Our analysis of the character of the offender involves a broad consideration of a

       defendant’s qualities, including the defendant’s age, criminal history,

       background, past rehabilitative efforts, and remorse. See Harris v. State, 165

       N.E.3d 91, 100 (Ind. 2021); McCain, 148 N.E.3d at 985. The significance of a

       Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 22A-CR-2104 | October 30, 2023      Page 23 of 26
       criminal history in assessing a defendant’s character and an appropriate

       sentence varies based on the gravity, nature, proximity, and number of prior

       offenses in relation to the current offense. Pierce, 949 N.E.2d at 352-53; see also

       Sandleben v. State, 29 N.E.3d 126, 137 (Ind. Ct. App. 2015) (citing Bryant v.

       State, 841 N.E.2d 1154, 1156 (Ind. 2006)), trans. denied. “Even a minor criminal

       history is a poor reflection of a defendant’s character.” Prince v. State, 148

       N.E.3d 1171, 1174 (Ind. Ct. App. 2020) (citing Moss v. State, 13 N.E.3d 440,

       448 (Ind. Ct. App. 2014), trans. denied).

[47]   Here, Dean’s criminal history consists of over one dozen misdemeanor

       convictions for check deception; misdemeanor convictions for conversion and

       driving-related offenses; several felony convictions for theft, forgery, and

       counterfeiting; and several probation revocations. Moreover, Dean fails to

       direct us to any positive character traits on her part. Accordingly, we cannot

       say that Dean’s sentence is inappropriate in light of her character.

       C. Tyrone’s sentence

[48]   Lastly, Dean argues that her sixty-year sentence is inappropriate because

       Tyrone was sentenced to only forty-five years. 7 “Although we need not

       compare the sentences of codefendants we are not precluded from comparing

       sentences among those convicted of the same or similar crimes.” Marley v.

       State, 17 N.E.3d 335, 339 (Ind. Ct. App. 2014) (citing Knight v. State, 930

       7
           At the time of this appeal, Shianne’s trial had not yet occurred.

       Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 22A-CR-2104 | October 30, 2023      Page 24 of 26
       N.E.2d 20, 22 (Ind. 2010)), trans. denied. When pressing the claim that one’s

       sentence is inappropriate based on the sentence of another, “[i]t is the

       defendant’s burden on appeal to persuade us that the sentence imposed by the

       trial court is inappropriate.” Id. (citing Childress v. State, 848 N.E.2d 1073, 1080

       (Ind. 2006)).

[49]   Here, we are not persuaded that Dean’s sentence is inappropriate in light of

       Tyrone’s sentence. Unlike Dean, Tyrone pleaded guilty to murder, which the

       trial court found to be a mitigating factor in Tyrone’s sentence. Indeed, our

       courts have long recognized that due to “crowded court dockets and a limited

       number of judges to hear those growing dockets, defendants who plead guilty

       save valuable judicial time and resources.” Trueblood v. State, 715 N.E.2d 1242,

       1257 (Ind. 1999). Guilty pleas also spare victims the emotional toll of a lengthy

       trial and often demonstrate “the defendant’s acceptance of responsibility for a

       crime.” Id. Additionally, Tyrone’s criminal history, which consisted of only a

       traffic violation, was significantly less extensive than Dean’s.

[50]   It is true that Tyrone might have “struck the fatal blows” that killed Willie.

       Appellant’s Br. p. 37. That, however, does not diminish Dean’s role in the

       conspiracy, which included planning the robbery, providing the murder

       weapon, and covering up the evidence. Not all co-conspirators are entitled to

       the same sentence, and in fact, we trust our trial courts to carefully consider the

       unique set of aggravating and mitigating factors in each case. This will

       inevitably result in different sentences. Our task is to determine whether Dean’s

       Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 22A-CR-2104 | October 30, 2023       Page 25 of 26
       sentence is inappropriate. Given the facts and circumstances here, we cannot

       say that is the case.

       Conclusion
[51]   The trial court’s remark endorsing eighty-percent certainty as a description of

       the reasonable doubt standard was improper but does not rise to the level of

       fundamental error. Additionally, sufficient evidence supports Dean’s

       conviction, and her sentence is not inappropriate. Accordingly, we affirm.

[52]   Affirmed.

       May, J., and Bradford, J., concur.

       Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 22A-CR-2104 | October 30, 2023   Page 26 of 26