JAMES v. STATE (2025)

MEMORANDUM DECISION

Case Summary

[1] Robert D. James appeals his conviction and 80-year sentence for murder and a firearm enhancement. He argues that the evidence is insufficient to support his conviction and that the trial court erred by failing to find certain sentencing mitigators. We affirm.

Facts and Procedural History

[2] Around 10:50 p.m. on November 5, 2021, Fort Wayne police found Tremaine Barnett shot to death in the driver's seat of an SUV. He had been shot in the right side of his head from close range, and the front passenger door of the SUV was left open. About 45 minutes before Barnett was found, a friend of his, Ashley Crawford, saw James in the SUV with Barnett, sitting in the front passenger seat. She said Barnett and James were the only two people in the SUV. When interviewed, James admitted being in the front passenger seat of the SUV that night but said that a third person he knew, named “Flex,” had been in the back seat and was the shooter. However, evidence from inside the SUV—blood spatter and a shell casing wedged between the seat back and seat bottom of the front passenger seat—suggested that the shooter was sitting in the front passenger seat. Also, two contacts in James's phones had “Flex” in the name, but cell records showed that neither of the phones associated with those contacts was in Fort Wayne on the day of the shooting.

[3] The State charged James with murder and a firearm enhancement.¹ A jury trial was held, and the State presented the evidence set forth above along with other substantial evidence of James's guilt, including: (1) James was aware that there was a $20,000 “ticket” on Barnett's “head,” Ex. 43 at 1:47-1:57, and photos taken in the days after the shooting showed James holding large amounts of cash; (2) three months after the shooting, during an unrelated traffic stop involving an acquaintance of James, a gun was recovered that was later determined to be the murder weapon, and James had a photo of the gun on his phone; and (3) multiple people who were in jail with James while he was awaiting trial testified that they heard him make incriminating statements about Barnett's murder, including one inmate who heard James say, in reference to a person named Tremaine, “I killed that n****.” Tr. Vol. III p. 140.

[4] The jury found James guilty of murder and also found that he used a firearm to commit the offense. In sentencing James, the trial court found three aggravating circumstances: James's criminal history (including three felony convictions), his failed efforts at rehabilitation, and the nature and circumstances of the offense. James didn't ask the court to find any mitigating circumstances, and the court didn't find any. The court sentenced James to 80 years in the Department of Correction—60 years for murder and 20 years for the firearm enhancement. The court also ordered James to pay $12,000 in restitution for Barnett's funeral expenses, with no objection from James.

[5] James now appeals.

Discussion and Decision

I. The evidence is sufficient to support James's conviction for murder

[6] James first contends that the evidence is insufficient to support his conviction for murder. When reviewing sufficiency-of-the-evidence claims, we neither reweigh the evidence nor judge the credibility of witnesses. Willis v. State, 27 N.E.3d 1065, 1066 (Ind. 2015). We will only consider the evidence supporting the conviction and any reasonable inferences that can be drawn from the evidence. Id. A conviction will be affirmed if there is substantial evidence of probative value to support each element of the offense such that a reasonable trier of fact could have found the defendant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. Id.

[7] James argues that the State failed to prove he was the shooter. He takes issue with the lack of direct evidence, noting that “[n]o witness observed James committing murder” and “[n]o physical evidence linked James to the actual commission of the crime.” Appellant's Br. p. 14. But a murder conviction can be based on circumstantial evidence alone. Hancz-Barron v. State, 235 N.E.3d 1237, 1244 (Ind. 2024). The evidence detailed above—which we need not rehash here, and much of which James doesn't acknowledge in his brief on appeal—is more than sufficient to sustain James's conviction.

II. James waived his sentencing arguments

[8] James also argues that his 80-year sentence “is inappropriate as the trial court failed to properly identify or give any weight to present and available mitigators.” Appellant's Br. p. 15. This argument conflates two different forms of appellate sentence review. Indiana Appellate Rule 7(B) provides that an appellate court “may revise a sentence authorized by statute if, after due consideration of the trial court's decision, the Court finds that the sentence is inappropriate in light of the nature of the offense and the character of the offender.” A trial court's finding of mitigating circumstances, on the other hand, is subject to abuse-of-discretion review. Wert v. State, 121 N.E.3d 1079, 1084 (Ind. Ct. App. 2019), trans. denied. Inappropriateness review and abuse-of-discretion review are separate. King v. State, 894 N.E.2d 265, 267 (Ind. Ct. App. 2008).

[9] To the extent James believes his sentence is inappropriate and should be reduced under Appellate Rule 7(B), he has waived that argument. After invoking the rule, he concedes that the offense was “egregious” and makes no argument about his character. Appellant's Br. pp. 15-16.

[10] What James actually claims is that the trial court should have found two mitigating circumstances: (1) his imprisonment will result in undue hardship to his dependents and (2) he didn't object to restitution being ordered. But he also waived this argument, in two ways. First, he didn't ask the trial court to find these mitigators. See Bryant v. State, 984 N.E.2d 240, 252 (Ind. Ct. App. 2013) (“Failure to present a mitigating circumstance to the trial court waives consideration of the circumstance on appeal.”), trans. denied. Second, he hasn't made a cogent argument supported by citations to the record. See Ind. Appellate Rule 46(A)(8)(a). As to the undue-hardship mitigator, James merely notes that he has five children, without citing any evidence that he has ever cared for them or supported them financially. As to the restitution mitigator, while it is true that James didn't object to the entry of the restitution order, he doesn't cite any evidence that he has paid any of the ordered amount, that he plans to do so, or that he will ever be able to do so.

[11] Because the evidence is sufficient to support James's murder conviction and he has waived his sentencing arguments, we affirm the judgment of the trial court.

[12] Affirmed.

FOOTNOTES

1.   The State also charged James with carrying a handgun without a license, but it later dismissed that charge.

Vaidik, Judge.

Bailey, J., and DeBoer, J., concur.