Brianna Michelle Wilson v. State of Indiana ( 2020 )

FILED
Nov 30 2020, 9:29 am
CLERK
Indiana Supreme Court
Court of Appeals
and Tax Court
ATTORNEY FOR APPELLANT ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE
Darren Bedwell Curtis T. Hill, Jr.
Marion County Public Defender Agency Attorney General of Indiana
Indianapolis, Indiana
Josiah Swinney
Deputy Attorney General
Indianapolis, Indiana
IN THE
COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA
Briana Michelle Wilson, November 30, 2020
Appellant-Defendant, Court of Appeals Case No.
19A-CR-1987
v. Appeal from the Marion Superior
Court
State of Indiana, The Honorable Barbara Crawford,
Appellee-Plaintiff. Judge
Trial Court Cause No.
49G01-1705-MR-18560
Najam, Judge.
Statement of the Case
[1] Briana Michelle Wilson appeals her conviction for murder, a felony, following
a jury trial. Wilson raises two issues for our review, which we restate as
follows:
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 19A-CR-1987 | November 30, 2020 Page 1 of 17
1. Whether the trial court abused its discretion when, at the
sentencing hearing on Wilson’s plea agreement for
voluntary manslaughter, the court rejected Wilson’s plea
agreement after Wilson testified that she had shot the
victim in self-defense while he was attacking her.
2. Whether the trial court abused its discretion when, at the
ensuing jury trial, it declined to instruct the jury on
voluntary manslaughter as a lesser-included offense to
murder.
[2] We affirm.
Facts and Procedural History
[3] On April 29, 2017, Wilson shot and killed Maurice Martinez inside her
apartment. The State charged Wilson with murder. On the morning of her
scheduled jury trial in February of 2019, Wilson agreed to plead guilty to
voluntary manslaughter, as a Level 2 felony, pursuant to a written plea
agreement. In exchange for her plea, the State agreed to dismiss the murder
charge and to agree to a cap of fifteen years executed as Wilson’s sentence.
[4] The court asked the parties for a factual basis for the plea, and the State
provided the following basis:
on April 29, 2017, [Wilson] knowingly killed another human
being that being Maurice Martinez, while acting under sudden
heat . . . . Upon arrival [officers] found a[n] individual who was
identified as Maurice Martinez, suffering from several gunshot
wounds. Mr. Martinez was transported to Eskenazi Hospital
where later his condition was pronounced deceased . . . . On the
scene as well, who was identified as the Defendant, Briana
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 19A-CR-1987 | November 30, 2020 Page 2 of 17
Wilson, and [her] cousin [R.T.]; those individuals were
transported to the [IMPD] Homicide Office. Inside the
apartment at the location, was located [a] 9-millimeter handgun,
as well as spent 9-millimeter shell casings which were
subsequently forensically matched to the firearm found in that
location. Detective Gary Toms was assigned as the lead
Homicide Detective on the case. Detective Toms did speak with
[Wilson] and she was advised of and waived her rights. In the
course of the interview, [Wilson] relayed the following: she
stated that earlier the previous day she had met with an
individual that she knew as “Derrick” at the O’Reilley Auto
Parts and that she started texting this man named “Derrick[,”]
who we have identified to be Mr. Maurice Martinez. After some
exchange back and forth, [Wilson] did ultimately invite over Mr.
Martinez to her apartment to hang out with her and as well as
her cousin [R.T.] At that time Mr. Martinez was initially acting
normally. There was no sort of altercation or anything that
started at that point. [Wilson] and Mr. Martinez continued to
hangout throughout the evening. They shared some drinks and
had some conversations. At one point, Mr. Martinez believed
that one (1) of the two (2) individuals[,] either [Wilson] or [R.T.],
. . . had taken money from him. At that point, Mr. Martinez
became fairly hostile and demanding both from [Wilson] and her
cousin to return the money that he believed they had taken from
him at that time. [Wilson] denied . . . taking the money, as well
as the cousin denied taking the money. Mr. Martinez continued
to be hostile, threatening and did ultimately end up putting his
hands on [Wilson]. According to [Wilson], pushing and
grabbing her neck and attempting to choke her. At that point,
[Wilson] began pushing back again[st Martinez] and telling him
to leave and demanding he leave the premises. [Martinez] did
back off somewhat and started heading to the front door of the
apartment but to continue to utter threats as he walked to the
front door. At that time . . . , [Martinez] then issued a final
threat as he was about to walk out the door. According to
[Wilson], at that point she produced a handgun and shot him
multiple times . . . .
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 19A-CR-1987 | November 30, 2020 Page 3 of 17
Supp. Tr. at 15-16. Wilson agreed with that factual basis. The court then stated
that it was “going to take this plea under advisement and . . . enter[] . . . an
order of conviction for the offense of Voluntary Manslaughter.” Id. at 17. The
court’s chronological case summary (“CCS”) states that the court entered
“[j]udgment” on the voluntary manslaughter charge at this time. Appellant’s
App. Vol. II at 20. The court then set the matter for a sentencing hearing.
[5] In the interim, the State prepared the pre-sentence investigation report (“the
PSI”). In the course of preparing the PSI, interviewers met with Wilson.
During her interview:
The plea agreement was reviewed with [Wilson.] While
reviewing the plea agreement, [she] indicated she was somewhat
confused about the plea agreement. She asked, “So I’m not
guilty of murder?” The plea agreement was reviewed with her
again. She then stated her attorney did not go over the plea
agreement with her, and said he told her that “everything was
going to be okay.” She asked, “So I did sign guilty for
Manslaughter?” The plea agreement was read to her a third
time, and she stated, “Yeah, that’s better than murder.” Ms.
Wilson also stated, “I hope everything goes well with the Judge.”
Id. at 152. She further told the interviewers that her family did not hold this
offense against her because they “know it was self-defense.” Id. at 153.
[6] At her ensuing sentencing hearing, the trial court expressed concern about
whether Wilson had entered her plea knowingly and voluntarily based on her
statements in the PSI. Wilson’s counsel called Wilson to testify in order to
ensure that she was entering into her plea knowingly and voluntarily. Wilson’s
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 19A-CR-1987 | November 30, 2020 Page 4 of 17
counsel asked Wilson about the terms of the plea agreement, her trial rights,
and whether it was her decision to enter into the plea agreement, and Wilson
again confirmed that she understood the agreement and her rights and that she
desired to plead guilty to voluntary manslaughter.
[7] The State then cross-examined Wilson as follows:
Q. Okay Ms. Wilson, I understand that you agree with your
attorney that you signed everything. You understand that you
admitted to shooting Maurice Martinez that day?
A. Yes.
Q. And you admitted that you did not do that in self-defense;
that you did that and you killed him?
A. No.
Q. You understand that you did not shoot Mr. Martinez in self-
defense?
A. It was self-defense.
Supp. Tr. at 37. The State then asked to speak to the court, but the court first
asked Wilson to clarify the factual basis for the plea agreement. Wilson
responded:
He was violating me in my own home and he also violated [R.T.]
He touched on her and he threatened to kill me, and he said that
I had stole [sic] eighty . . . dollar[s] from him which I don’t have
to steal anything from no one. He pulled on my arm and he said
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 19A-CR-1987 | November 30, 2020 Page 5 of 17
he was going to take me out to his car and shoot me. That’s
what he said and I got loose and I went and got my gun and I
shot him because he was dragging me out of my house by my
arm[ 1] . . . .
Id. at 37-38.
[8] The court then held a sidebar with the attorneys and stated that the court was
“having a problem accepting this plea” because Wilson “believes she was
protecting herself.” Id. at 38. The court further stated that it “thought [it] just
took [the plea agreement] under advisement” at the guilty plea hearing and had
not yet accepted that agreement. Id. at 39. The record on appeal does not
reflect that Wilson objected or otherwise challenged the trial court’s assessment
that the acceptance of the plea agreement was still under advisement. 2
1
Wilson’s last sentence was not part of the original factual basis for her guilty plea at the guilty plea hearing,
and, indeed, there was no evidence of a simultaneous attack presented to the jury at her later trial.
2
The transcript from the sentencing hearing states:
[Deputy Prosecutor]: [W]e only did the factual basis at the last hearing.
THE COURT: I thought I just took it under advisement.
[Deputy Prosecutor]: Oh, okay.
[Wilson’s counsel]: (inaudible)
[Deputy Prosecutor]: Okay, good.
[Wilson’s counsel]: (inaudible)
THE COURT: You may ask.
[Wilson’s counsel]: Thanks.
Supp. Tr. at 39. Wilson has not filed a statement of evidence pursuant to Indiana Appellate Rule 31 or a
motion to correct or modify the transcript pursuant to Indiana Appellate Rule 32 with respect to the
“inaudible” portions of that transcript.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 19A-CR-1987 | November 30, 2020 Page 6 of 17
[9] Wilson’s counsel then requested an opportunity to reexamine Wilson, which
the court granted. The following exchange occurred:
Q. And then what was Mr. Martinez’s reaction to not being able
to find the money?
A. Threatening us, saying stuff to us, trying to violate us.
Q. You said he threatened you, what did he say?
A. He said he was going to get his gun and he was going to
shoot me.
Q. Okay.
A. That was his words [sic].
Q. Okay, but did he have a gun on his person or not?
A. Not.
Q. He did not have a gun?
A. No.
Q. Okay. He said he was going to get a gun from where?
A. His car.
Q. And again, you live in an apartment complex. Right?
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 19A-CR-1987 | November 30, 2020 Page 7 of 17
A. Yes.
Q. And his car was parked out in the parking lot?
A. Yes.
Q. Okay.
A. In front of the house.
Q. Mr. Martinez was leaving your apartment. Is that right?
A. He was leaving.
Q. Okay.
A. He was dragging me, but he was leaving.
Id. at 41-42. Following Wilson’s last statement, the State spoke up. Id. at 42.
The court then stated that it “is not going to be able to accept this plea
agreement based on what Ms. Wilson says . . . . This is not Voluntary
Manslaughter, she raises the [defense of] Self-Defense. So I am going to reset
this for trial.” Id.
[10] At Wilson’s ensuing jury trial, the State presented evidence to show that Wilson
had shot Martinez twice in the back. The jury also considered Wilson’s
statement to Detective Toms shortly after the shooting. According to that
statement:
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 19A-CR-1987 | November 30, 2020 Page 8 of 17
Wilson and [her juvenile cousin, R.T.,] went to O’Reilly Auto
Parts earlier in the day. Here, she met Maurice Martinez . . . .
Wilson exchanged numbers with Martinez, and he told her that
he wanted to hang out with her later. Martinez later called
Wilson and tried to get her to go to a room . . . . Wilson declined
to go to a room but arranged for Martinez to come to her
apartment. Martinez arrived at Wilson’s apartment later that
evening . . . . After some time, Wilson stated that she and
Martinez engaged in consensual sex . . . . However, Wilson
noticed . . . that Martinez was not using protection. Wilson then
ended the sexual encounter with Martinez[] and believed this
caused him to become upset.
Wilson then went upstairs to her room because of the situation.
Martinez then followed her upstairs . . . and told her that he still
wanted to date her. Wilson asked Martinez to get his stuff and
leave at that point. He went downstairs and got his pants . . . .
Martinez then started checking his pants pockets. Wilson stated
that Martinez had a bunch of credit cards and some money
originally. After searching his pockets, Martinez told Wilson
that his money was missing. Martinez then accused R.T. of
taking his money while he was talking to Wilson. Wilson told
Martinez that R.T. did not take his money . . . . Wilson then told
Martinez to go downstairs and she would help him find the
money . . . but [they] did not find the money. Martinez then told
Wilson . . . that he suspected R.T. of having his money . . . .
According to Wilson, Martinez made a threat that Wilson’s
home will be shot at, and that the blame would fall on
[Wilson]. . . .
According to Wilson, Martinez then got on his phone and started
giving people her address and saying[,] “I’m over this bitch house
and they took my money.” Martinez then grabbed Wilson by the
neck and told her to tell R.T. to give him his money. Wilson
asked R.T. if she had Martinez’ money. R.T. told Wilson that
she did not have Martinez’ money. . . . According to Wilson,
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 19A-CR-1987 | November 30, 2020 Page 9 of 17
Martinez then said, “ok. Y’all bitches ain’t got my money. I’m
going to go out to the car and get my gun and come back and
shoot both of y’all bitches.” Martinez then told Wilson to go out
to his car with him.
Wilson would go on to explain that[,] when she came back
downstairs after Martinez, she brought her purse with her and
that her gun was in her purse. Wilson stated that she put her gun
in a drawer in the kitchen because she was afraid Martinez was
going to find her gun in her purse. Wilson stated she did not
think that Martinez was playing around[] based on his previous
actions and threats. Additionally, Wilson stated that Martinez
bragged about killings and robberies he had committed. Wilson
then admitted to shooting Martinez, but that she did not shoot
him to kill him. She just did not want him to go outside and get
the gun and come back inside and kill her and R.T.
Wilson explained that Martinez was by her front door step when
she shot him, and the front door was open. Wilson stated that
Martinez had unlocked and opened the front door and then said
that he was going out to the car to get his gun . . . .
***
When asked about whether she knew how much money
Martinez had, Wilson stated that Martinez had a bunch of $1’s
and a $10. She then stated that Martinez claimed $80 was
taken . . . . Wilson denied any other physical assault other than
the choking. She estimated being choked for approximately two
(2) minutes . . . . During the statement and afterward, Detective
Toms observed [Wilson’s] neck and saw no marks or sign of
physical trauma; furthermore, Detective Toms checked Wilson’s
eyes and observed no physical indicia of strangulation . . . .
Appellant’s App. Vol. II at 33-35.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 19A-CR-1987 | November 30, 2020 Page 10 of 17
[11] Wilson called R.T. to testify at the trial. R.T. did not testify to any physical
attack by Martinez. Instead, she testified that Martinez had been yelling about
the missing money, that he said he was going to get his gun to “kill me and
[Wilson],” and that Wilson then shot him. Tr. Vol. III at 40.
[12] Wilson requested a jury instruction for voluntary manslaughter. The trial court
declined the request on the ground that there was no serious evidentiary dispute
as to whether Wilson had shot Martinez in sudden heat. However, the court
did instruct the jury, at Wilson’s request, on the defense of self-defense. The
jury found Wilson guilty of murder. The trial court then sentenced Wilson to
fifty-five years, with ten years suspended. This appeal ensued.
Discussion and Decision
Issue One: The Court’s Rejection of Wilson’s Plea Agreement
[13] On appeal, Wilson first asserts that the trial court abused its discretion when it
rejected her plea agreement. Our trial courts “enjoy considerable discretion in
deciding whether to accept or reject a proposed plea agreement.” Rodriguez v.
State, 129 N.E.3d 789, 794 (Ind. 2019). We review such decisions for an abuse
of that discretion, which occurs only where the trial court’s decision is clearly
against the logic and effects of the facts and circumstances before the court, or if
the court misapplies the law. E.g., Dycus v. State, 108 N.E.3d 301, 303 (Ind.
2018).
[14] Wilson initially contends that the trial court accepted her plea agreement at the
guilty plea hearing and, as such, it had no discretion to then reconsider whether
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 19A-CR-1987 | November 30, 2020 Page 11 of 17
to accept the agreement at the ensuing sentencing hearing. At the conclusion of
the guilty plea hearing, the court orally informed the parties that it was “going
to take this plea under advisement and . . . enter[] . . . an order of conviction for
the offense of Voluntary Manslaughter.” Supp. Tr. at 17. That statement is
inconsistent and, hence, ambiguous because the court both took the plea
agreement under advisement and entered a judgment of conviction on the
offense of voluntary manslaughter as if Wilson’s guilty plea were an open plea.
[15] The court’s CCS states that the court entered “[j]udgment” on the voluntary
manslaughter charge the day of the guilty plea hearing. Appellant’s App. Vol.
II at 20. Generally, “the trial court speaks through its CCS . . . and this court is
limited in its authority to look behind the CCS to examine whether an event
recorded therein actually occurred.” City of Indianapolis v. Hicks, 932 N.E.2d
227, 233 (Ind. Ct. App. 2010), trans. denied. However, one of those limited
circumstances is when the record as a whole demonstrates that the CCS entries
are “factually inaccurate.” Id. at 234 (discussing Gibson v. State, 910 N.E.2d
263, 268 (Ind. Ct. App. 2009)).
[16] Here, we are obliged to conclude that the record as a whole demonstrates that
the purported entry of judgment in the CCS is factually inaccurate. First, the
CCS entry is incomplete on its face as it makes no reference to the plea
agreement, which leaves the mistaken impression that Wilson’s plea was an
open plea. Second, at the sentencing hearing, the court stated that it had taken
the plea agreement under advisement. Thus, the purported entry of judgment
for voluntary manslaughter based upon a plea agreement that the court had not
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 19A-CR-1987 | November 30, 2020 Page 12 of 17
yet accepted was, at best, provisional and contingent upon whether the court
would ultimately accept the agreement. And, critically, the record on appeal
does not reflect that Wilson objected or did anything other than assent to the
court’s statement that the plea agreement was in fact still under advisement.
[17] Accordingly, we must conclude that the trial court’s oral comments at the guilty
plea hearing and the CCS entry for that day are not conclusive as to whether
the trial court accepted Wilson’s plea agreement or took it under advisement.
We further conclude that, when the trial court made clear at the sentencing
hearing that its position was that it had only taken the plea agreement under
advisement, Wilson had the affirmative duty to object or otherwise make a
record that the plea agreement had in fact already been accepted. Instead, the
record on appeal does not show that Wilson did anything other than assent to
the trial court’s determination. We therefore conclude that Wilson has not met
her burden on appeal to show that the trial court accepted her agreement at the
guilty plea hearing.
[18] Wilson next contends that the court abused its discretion when it rejected her
plea agreement at the sentencing hearing. Wilson asserts that her comment that
she had acted in “self-defense” was not a legal conclusion. She further asserts
that her comment also was not a claim of innocence but a plea for leniency.
The State, in turn, contests those arguments.
[19] We need not decide whether Wilson’s statements were attempts at legal
conclusions or were claims of innocence. Our standard of review in this appeal
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 19A-CR-1987 | November 30, 2020 Page 13 of 17
is deferential and controls the outcome here. The factual basis submitted to the
court on the plea agreement could have been found by a jury to establish the
offense of murder, a mitigated offense of voluntary manslaughter, or an
exculpatory act of self-defense. In such circumstances, it was within the trial
court’s discretion to reject the plea agreement and have that call be made by the
jury. We therefore cannot say that the trial court abused its discretion when it
rejected Wilson’s plea agreement.
Issue Two: Jury Instructions
[20] Wilson next contends that the trial court abused its discretion when it declined
to instruct the jury on voluntary manslaughter as a lesser-included offense to
murder. As our Supreme Court has explained:
To determine whether to instruct a jury on a lesser included
offense, the trial court must engage in a three-part analysis. The
first two parts require the trial court to consider whether the
lesser included offense is inherently or factually included in the
greater offense. If it is, then the trial court must determine if
there is a serious evidentiary dispute regarding the element that
distinguishes the lesser offense from the principal charge. . . .
When considering whether there is a serious evidentiary dispute,
the trial court examines the evidence presented by both parties
regarding the element(s) distinguishing the greater offense from
the lesser one. This involves evaluating the weight and
credibility of the evidence, and then determining the seriousness
of any resulting dispute. Because the trial court found no serious
evidentiary dispute existed, we will reverse only if that finding
was an abuse of discretion. In our review, we accord the trial
court considerable deference, view the evidence in a light most
favorable to the decision, and determine whether the trial court’s
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 19A-CR-1987 | November 30, 2020 Page 14 of 17
decision can be justified in light of the evidence and
circumstances of the case.
Leonard v. State, 80 N.E.3d 878, 885 (Ind. 2017) (cleaned up).
[21] The only question on this issue is whether there was a serious evidentiary
dispute before the jury on the question of sudden heat, which distinguishes
voluntary manslaughter from murder. See Ind. Code § 35-42-1-3 (2020).
“Sudden heat exists when a defendant is ‘provoked by anger, rage, resentment,
or terror, to a degree sufficient to obscure the reason of an ordinary person,
prevent deliberation and premeditation, and render the defendant incapable of
cool reflection.’” Brantley v. State, 91 N.E.3d 566, 572 (Ind. 2018) (quoting Isom
v. State, 31 N.E.3d 469, 486 (Ind. 2015)). Wilson asserts that the evidence
before the jury created a serious evidentiary dispute as to whether she had shot
Martinez out of terror.
[22] We cannot agree with Wilson’s argument on appeal. Wilson’s statement to
Detective Toms the day of the shooting was that, at some point prior to
shooting Martinez, he had grabbed her around the neck and choked her. It is
not clear precisely when that choking purportedly happened, but it is clear that
it was not simultaneous with the shooting. Indeed, in this respect, the evidence
before the jury was not consistent with Wilson’s testimony to the trial court at
the sentencing hearing on her guilty plea, in which Wilson testified that she
shot Martinez while he was “dragging” her out of the apartment. Supp. Tr. at
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 19A-CR-1987 | November 30, 2020 Page 15 of 17
37-38, 41-42. Again, Wilson presented no such evidence to the jury of an attack
simultaneous with the shooting. 3
[23] Moreover, the evidence of any physical attack by Martinez was inconclusive.
There was no other evidence corroborating Wilson’s claim. Detective Toms
stated that Wilson had no abrasions, bruises, or bloodshot eyes that might have
resulted from such an attack. And Wilson’s only witness, R.T., did not testify
that a physical attack had occurred.
[24] Further, while Martinez’s statement that he was going to go get his gun out of
his car and kill Martinez and R.T. might have been upsetting, “words alone are
not sufficient provocation to reduce murder to manslaughter.” Isom, 31 N.E.3d
at 486 (quotation marks omitted). Wilson therefore cannot rely only on
Martinez’s words as a basis for showing that she acted in sudden heat.
[25] Finally, the real thrust of Wilson’s argument is not that any one of those factors
shows sudden heat but that, when taken together, they do. But we are, at best,
left with an uncorroborated—if not contradicted—claim of an attack some time
prior to a shooting along with Martinez’s statement that he would return with a
gun. Even if under these circumstances the trial court could have given an
instruction on voluntary manslaughter, we cannot say that the trial court
3
In her brief on appeal, Wilson states that her 9-1-1 calls shortly before and immediately after the shooting
show that Martinez “tried to force Wilson to walk out to the car with him” when she shot him. Appellant’s
Br. at 37-38. But the transcript of Wilson’s second 9-1-1 call does not reflect that characterization and instead
is consistent with her statement to Detective Toms that, at some time prior to shooting him, Martinez had
choked her. Appellant’s App. Vol. II at 37-39.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 19A-CR-1987 | November 30, 2020 Page 16 of 17
abused its discretion when it declined to do so. See Snow v. State, 77 N.E.3d
173, 177 (Ind. 2017) (“discretion means that, in many cases, trial judges have
options.”). It was the trial court’s prerogative to consider “the weight and
credibility of the evidence” in “determining the seriousness” of any evidentiary
dispute for purposes of deciding whether to instruct the jury on voluntary
manslaughter as a lesser-included offense to murder. Leonard, 80 N.E.3d at
885. We cannot say that the trial court abused its discretion on this record.
Accordingly, we affirm Wilson’s conviction for murder.
[26] Affirmed.
Riley, J., and Crone, J., concur.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 19A-CR-1987 | November 30, 2020 Page 17 of 17