Court Opinion

ID: 9897338
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-11-14 19:10:20.774267+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:14:07.467855
License: Public Domain

FILED
                                                                               Jul 19 2023, 8:49 am

                                                                                    CLERK
                                                                                Indiana Supreme Court
                                                                                   Court of Appeals
                                                                                     and Tax Court

ATTORNEY FOR APPELLANT                                      ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE
Anna Onaitis Holden                                         Theodore E. Rokita
Zionsville, Indiana                                         Indiana Attorney General
                                                            Justin F. Roebel
                                                            Supervising Deputy Attorney
                                                            General
                                                            Indianapolis, Indiana

                                             IN THE
    COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA

Joe A. Viverett,                                            July 19, 2023
Appellant-Defendant,                                        Court of Appeals Case No.
                                                            22A-CR-2076
        v.                                                  Appeal from the Marion Superior
                                                            Court
State of Indiana,                                           The Honorable Steven J. Rubick,
Appellee-Plaintiff                                          Magistrate
                                                            Trial Court Cause No.
                                                            49D20-2201-F4-608

                              Opinion by Judge Crone
                    Judge Kenworthy and Senior Judge Robb concur.

Crone, Judge.

Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 22A-CR-2076 | July 19, 2023                            Page 1 of 9
      Case Summary
[1]   Joe A. Viverett appeals his convictions, following a jury trial, for two counts of

      level 4 felony unlawful possession of a firearm by a serious violent felon (SVF).

      He was also found to be a habitual offender. We reframe the multiple issues

      raised on appeal as whether the trial court erred in admitting evidence at trial.

      The crux of Viverett’s argument revolves around the warrantless entry into his

      home by parole officers that he alleges violated his rights under the Fourth

      Amendment to the United States Constitution and Article 1, Section 11 of the

      Indiana Constitution. Concluding that Viverett failed to properly preserve his

      challenge to the trial court’s admission of evidence, we affirm.

      Facts and Procedural History
[2]   On January 5, 2022, Indiana Department of Correction parole officers went to

      a home on North Brentwood Avenue in Marion County where they believed

      parolee Lance Lewis had been staying. The home belonged to Viverett. As a

      condition of his parole, Lewis signed a contract allowing officers to conduct

      compliance checks at residences where he was staying. Lewis had recently

      failed multiple drug screens, and officers received information that he may have

      been “involved in an incident” that took place at the Brentwood Avenue

      address. Tr. Vol. 2 at 30. Lewis was summoned to the parole office, and, during

      interrogation, officers confiscated his cellphone and a set of keys. Although

      Lewis initially denied residing at that address, officers confirmed that he had

      sent multiple text messages giving the Brentwood Avenue address as his own

      and that he was also trying to get utilities at that address placed in his name.

      Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 22A-CR-2076 | July 19, 2023          Page 2 of 9
      Through GPS tracking points, officers further confirmed that Lewis’s car had

      been parked primarily at that address. The Brentwood Avenue address had not

      been approved by the parole office. Accordingly, officers went to the

      Brentwood Avenue address to do a compliance check. When the parole officers

      arrived, they knocked on the door and announced themselves. Nobody

      answered, so they used keys given to the parole office by Lewis to open the

      front door. Officers entered the home and immediately did a protective sweep

      for their safety. Two officers entered an upstairs bedroom, where they found

      Viverett and a female sleeping in a bed. Officers observed a handgun in plain

      view on the floor next to the bed. In other areas of the house, the parole officers

      observed another handgun, a box of what appeared to be synthetic marijuana, a

      digital scale, and a pipe containing white residue.

[3]   Based upon their observations, the parole officers requested assistance from the

      Indianapolis Metropolitan Police Department (IMPD). IMPD officers sought

      and obtained a search warrant for the residence. Thereafter, a shotgun was

      found underneath the mattress where Viverett had been sleeping. Officers also

      located a video security system and observed footage showing Viverett holding

      both a shotgun and a handgun.

[4]   The State charged Viverett with two counts of level 4 felony unlawful

      possession of a handgun by an SVF, level 4 felony unlawful possession of a

      shotgun by an SVF, and class C misdemeanor possession of paraphernalia.

      Viverett filed a motion to suppress evidence on May 5, 2022. Following a

      hearing, Judge Jennifer Harrison denied the motion. Specifically, Judge

      Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 22A-CR-2076 | July 19, 2023          Page 3 of 9
      Harrison found that it was “reasonable for the parole officers to believe that this

      was either [Lewis’s] residence, his place of employment or a location where his

      personal property could reasonably be located.” Id. at 80. Judge Harrison

      concluded that, based on the “totality of the circumstances,” the parole officers

      were simply “executing the conditional release agreement[,]” and therefore “the

      entry into the home and the protective sweep that occurred in the home is legal

      which then led to the search warrant which we’re not here to contest today.” Id.

      at 80-81.

[5]   Thereafter, the State dismissed the class C misdemeanor charge but added a

      habitual offender allegation. A jury trial was held before Magistrate Steven

      Rubick on July 13, 2022. At the outset of trial, Viverett lodged a continuing

      objection to the admission of any evidence found following the parole officers’

      warrantless entry of his home, asserting that he believed that his pretrial motion

      to suppress should have been granted. Magistrate Rubick ruled that Judge

      Harrison’s denial of the motion to suppress would stand but approved the

      continuing objection. The jury found Viverett guilty of both firearm possession

      charges. Viverett waived his right to a jury trial as to the habitual offender

      allegation, and Magistrate Rubick found him to be a habitual offender. Viverett

      was sentenced to concurrent eight-year sentences for the firearm possession

      convictions, and his sentence for possession of a handgun was enhanced by six

      years based upon the habitual offender finding. This appeal ensued.

      Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 22A-CR-2076 | July 19, 2023           Page 4 of 9
      Discussion and Decision
[6]   Viverett challenges the trial court’s “admission of the evidence—the firearms—

      discovered as a result of the parole officers’ warrantless entry into his home.”

      Appellant’s Br. at 10. Viverett acknowledges that although he filed a pretrial

      motion to suppress that was denied, because this appeal follows a completed

      trial and conviction, the suppression issue is no longer viable, and the issue is

      characterized as a request to review the trial court’s decision to admit any

      challenged evidence. Casillas v. State, 190 N.E.3d 1005, 1012 (Ind. Ct. App.

      2022), trans. denied. We generally review the trial court’s ruling on the

      admission or exclusion of evidence for an abuse of discretion. Rogers v. State,

      130 N.E.3d 626, 629 (Ind. Ct. App. 2019). We will reverse a ruling on the

      admission of evidence for an abuse of discretion, which occurs only when the

      ruling is clearly against the logic and effect of the facts and circumstances and

      the error affects a party’s substantial rights. Clark v. State, 994 N.E.2d 252, 260

      (Ind. 2013).

[7]   Viverett makes clear that he is not challenging the trial court’s decision to admit

      any specific piece of evidence. Rather, he attempts to revive the suppression

      issue by asserting that the “State adduced no evidence during the jury trial” to

      establish the legality of the search of his home. Appellant’s Br. at 5. In other

      words, Viverett is challenging the overall sufficiency of the State’s foundational

      evidence offered at trial, arguing that “[t]he in-trial evidence explaining the

      parole agents’ warrantless entry into Mr. Viverett’s home” was “lacking”

      compared to what was offered during the suppression hearing. Id. at 16.

      Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 22A-CR-2076 | July 19, 2023           Page 5 of 9
[8]   The State contends that Viverett did not preserve his current evidentiary

      challenge because he failed to make a proper contemporaneous objection and

      specific showing at trial. We agree. It is well settled that “[a] pre-trial motion to

      suppress does not preserve an error for appellate review; rather, the defendant

      must make a contemporaneous objection providing the trial court with an

      opportunity to make a final ruling on the matter in the context in which the

      evidence is introduced.” D.A.L. v. State, 937 N.E.2d 419, 422 (Ind. Ct. App.

      2010). The rule requiring a contemporaneous objection “is no mere procedural

      technicality; instead, its purpose is to allow the trial judge to consider the issue

      in light of any fresh developments and also to correct any errors.” Shoda v. State,

      132 N.E.3d 454, 461 (Ind. Ct. App. 2019).

[9]   Viverett is correct that if a defendant makes a contemporaneous objection

      during trial to the State’s foundational evidence, and the evidence is not the

      same as at the suppression hearing stage, the trial court must determine whether

      certain evidence is admissible based upon the testimony and evidence presented

      at trial. Casillas, 190 N.E.3d at 1012. Indeed, under such circumstances, while

      the trial court “may not wholly dismiss direct evidence at trial and accept

      evidence from the motion to suppress hearing in its place,” the trial court is

      permitted to “reflect upon the foundational evidence from the motion to

      suppress hearing” to the extent that such evidence was not “in direct conflict

      with the evidence introduced at trial.” Kelley v. State, 825 N.E.2d 420, 426 (Ind.

      Ct. App. 2005).

      Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 22A-CR-2076 | July 19, 2023            Page 6 of 9
[10]   Here, however, the trial court was deprived of such an opportunity because that

       is not the objection that Viverett made. At the outset of trial, Viverett lodged a

       simple “standing objection” to “literally anything – physical items found in the

       house and statements made by any person as I believe the entry into the home

       was unconstitutional.” Tr. Vol. 2 at 88. The trial court acknowledged the

       standing objection but ruled that the pretrial denial of the motion to suppress

       would stand.

[11]   It is well established that once a continuing objection is approved, “trial judges

       ... need not necessarily rehear evidence and arguments relating to admissibility

       issues previously heard and determined during pre-trial proceedings.” Joyner v.

       State, 678 N.E.2d 386, 393 (Ind. 1997). Our supreme court has offered guidance

       for the proper way to handle a trial objection on an issue decided in a pretrial

       hearing:

                When a simple objection for the purpose of preserving appellate
                rights is made, the trial judge should consider the pre-trial
                determination res judicata and binding upon him and overrule
                the objection.[ 1] If, however, the trial objection is based upon new
                factual or legal matter, a simple overruling of the objection would
                not be appropriate. In that instance, the trial judge may expect,
                and indeed require, that he be provided with an accurate
                summary description of such new matter. Thereafter, either of
                two levels of judicial response is appropriate. The trial judge may

       1
         This Court has noted that the “suggestion that the doctrine of res judicata is applicable to pre-trial evidentiary
       rulings would appear to be an inadvertent error” and applies only to matters that have been fully litigated and
       where a final determination has been made prior to trial. Kelley, 825 N.E.2d at 425 n.3 (citing Joyner, 678
       N.E.2d at 393).

       Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 22A-CR-2076 | July 19, 2023                                       Page 7 of 9
               summarily overrule the objection if the new matter could in no
               event result in a determination of inadmissibility. This summary
               disposition may be made upon consideration of counsel’s
               description, or, in the discretion of the judge, after having
               permitted the defense to call witnesses, to present its new matter.
               On the other hand, if the trial judge deems such new matter to be
               of sufficient substance, he may conduct a hearing on the motion
               to suppress, having a scope appropriate under the circumstances,
               and reconsider the issue of admissibility.

       Magley v. State, 263 Ind. 618, 634-35, 335 N.E.2d 811, 821 (1975), overruled on

       other grounds by Smith v. State, 689 N.E.2d 1238 (Ind. 1997).

[12]   Viverett’s simple objection here clearly did not alert the trial court that any new

       factual or legal matters had arisen since the suppression hearing. Moreover, at

       no time during trial did he assert that the State’s foundational evidence

       justifying the warrantless entry into his home was lacking or contradictory to

       that offered at the suppression hearing. Nevertheless, he suggests that rather

       than summarily affirming the pretrial suppression ruling at the outset of trial,

       the trial court should have “reopened the suppression issue for in-trial

       litigation.” Appellant’s Br. at 16. But this was neither requested nor required of

       the trial court. A trial court will not be found to have abused its discretion by

       not stopping the trial and conducting a full evidentiary hearing to reopen a

       suppression issue absent evidence presented at trial in direct conflict with the

       evidence presented at the suppression hearing. Strickland v. State, 119 N.E.3d

       140, 148 (Ind. Ct. App. 2019) (citing Kelley, 825 N.E.2d at 426), trans. denied.

       Viverett does not argue that the evidence presented at trial was in direct conflict

       with evidence presented at the suppression hearing, and he does not direct this
       Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 22A-CR-2076 | July 19, 2023             Page 8 of 9
       Court to any such evidence in the record. Without more, neither the trial court

       nor this Court must fully revisit the suppression issue.2 Viverett’s convictions

       are affirmed.

[13]   Affirmed.

       Kenworthy, J., and Robb, Sr.J., concur.

       2
         We acknowledge that, in this case, different judicial officers presided over the suppression hearing and the
       trial. Our supreme court has explained,
             Where, as in the case at bar, the judge who conducts the trial is not the judge who conducted
             and determined the pre-trial motion, obstacles to a full and fair reconsideration at trial exist. The
             trial judge is not acquainted with the evidence presented in the pre-trial hearing. Consequently,
             he is unable to weigh the old evidence with the new. This problem does not arise, of course,
             where the trial judge makes a summary denial of the objection based upon an inadequate
             showing of substantial new matter.
       Magley, 263 Ind. at 635, 335 N.E.2d at 821. As noted above, the trial court here was not required to fully
       revisit the suppression issue absent a showing of “new factual or legal matter[s],” and thus the change of
       judicial officers here is of no moment. See id.

       Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 22A-CR-2076 | July 19, 2023                                     Page 9 of 9