SEEMAN v. STATE (2025)

MEMORANDUM DECISION

Statement of the Case

[1] A jury determined Zachary David Seeman was guilty of four offenses in connection with his flight from law enforcement and the subsequent discovery of methamphetamine in his vehicle. On appeal, Seeman argues that several of his convictions violate Indiana's constitutional protections against double jeopardy. The State concedes that Seeman is correct. Consequently, we reverse and remand with instructions.

Facts and Procedural History

[2] On the morning of May 18, 2024, Indiana State Trooper Matthew Wilson was driving his fully-marked police vehicle in Indianapolis. He noticed a car and looked up its license plate in a database. Trooper Wilson determined that the car's license plate had been reported as stolen. In addition, the driver of the car, later identified as Seeman, was not wearing a seat belt.

[3] Trooper Wilson activated his vehicle's lights and sirens to initiate a stop, but Seeman disregarded the trooper and tried to drive away. Eventually, Seeman jumped out of his car as it was rolling slowly down an alley, and he ran away. Trooper Wilson got out of his vehicle and stopped the uncontrolled car.

[4] The trooper obtained a search warrant for the car and found several items bearing Seeman's name. He also found a crystal substance, which the State and Seeman later stipulated was 32.99 grams of methamphetamine.

[5] The State charged Seeman as follows:

Count I: Level 2 felony dealing in methamphetamine;

Count II: Level 3 felony possession of methamphetamine;

Count III: Level 6 felony resisting law enforcement by vehicle; and

Count IV: Class A misdemeanor resisting law enforcement.

The State further alleged that Seeman was an habitual offender.

[6] The jury found Seeman guilty of all four offenses, and he later admitted that he was an habitual offender.

[7] The trial court sentenced Seeman as follows: (1) Count I, twenty years (twelve years plus eight years for the habitual offender enhancement; (2) Count II, three years; (3) Count III, one year; and (4) Count IV, one year. The court ordered Seeman to serve his sentences concurrently, for a total sentence of twenty years. This appeal followed.

Discussion and Decision

[8] Seeman argues that his convictions violate Indiana's substantive double jeopardy protections, which address “claims related to multiple convictions for the same offense in a single proceeding.” A.W. v. State, 229 N.E.3d 1060, 1066 (Ind. 2024). He claims: (1) his convictions of dealing in methamphetamine and possession of methamphetamine violate double jeopardy; and (2) his convictions of resisting law enforcement by vehicle and misdemeanor resisting law enforcement violate double jeopardy.

[9] The State concedes that Seeman is entitled to prevail on both of his claims. Appellee's Br. p. 9 (methamphetamine-related charges); pp. 11-12 (resisting law enforcement charges). As a result, we need not further consider the merits and instead turn to the remedy. When faced with dual convictions that offend double jeopardy principles, we vacate the offense with the lesser criminal penalty. Shepherd v. State, 157 N.E.3d 1209, 1223 (Ind. Ct. App. 2020), trans. denied. The parties agree that the appropriate relief is vacatur of Seeman's convictions of Count II, possession of methamphetamine, and Count IV, resisting law enforcement. Accordingly, we reverse and remand to the trial court with instructions to vacate Seeman's convictions for Counts II and IV and issue a new sentencing order.

Conclusion

[10] For the reasons stated above, we reverse the judgment of the trial court and remand for further proceedings consistent with this decision.

[11] Reversed and remanded with instructions.

Crone, Senior Judge.

Bailey, J., and Bradford, J., concur.