LAKE v. STATE (2022)

MEMORANDUM DECISION

Case Summary

[1] Following a jury trial, Damen Lake (“Lake”) appeals the portion of his sentence extending the protective order prohibiting him from having contact with his wife, Jennifer Lake (“Wife”). The only issue on appeal is whether the trial court abused its discretion when it extended the no contact order.

[2] We affirm.

Facts and Procedural History

[3] S.G. and Jeremy Simmons (“Simmons”) were romantically involved and lived in the Shadeland Inn in August and September of 2018. S.G. and Simmons used methamphetamine. While living at the hotel, they met Lake and Wife, who also lived at the hotel. Lake began using drugs with Simmons and would visit S.G. and Simmons's room every day.

[4] Near the end of September 2018, Lake and Wife were evicted from the Shadeland Inn and began living in their van. Lake still visited S.G. and Simmons, and Wife sometimes joined him to use S.G. and Simmons's shower. In October 2018, S.G. and Simmons were also evicted from the Shadeland Inn, and they blamed Lake for their eviction. They moved to the Always Inn, and S.G. banned Lake from their room. However, Simmons continued to see Lake to sell him methamphetamine.

[5] On October 6, 2018, S.G., Simmons, and their friend, J.B., were sitting on S.G. and Simmons's bed, smoking methamphetamine and talking. Simmons was on a phone call with Lake, and the two men began to argue. Simmons said to Lake, “I seen [sic] a decent person turn into a piece of shit.” Tr. v. III at 79. Lake became “upset” after that comment and told Wife, “I'm going to go blow Jeremy [sic] brains out all [over] the wall to see what the hell he was thinking.” Id.

[6] That day Lake repeatedly called David Wood (“Wood”) because Lake wanted Wood's gun. At approximately 3:26 p.m., Lake sent Wood a text that stated, “Need you [ ] asap on jermie I got a gram for you if you do this.” Ex. v. II at 18. At approximately 4:24 p.m., Lake sent Wood a text that stated, “I be [sic] there to get you in 20 minutes․” Id. at 20.

[7] Lake and Wife subsequently drove to pick up Wood. Wood and his brother entered Lake and Wife's van, and the four of them drove to S.G. and Simmons's hotel, the Always Inn. When they arrived at the hotel, they did not park in the hotel parking lot but down the road on a side street. Lake, Wood, and Wood's brother did a “hit of meth” and told Wife to stay in the van. Tr. Vol. III at 84. The three men then walked across the street. Wife did not have a phone to call 9-1-1, and she did not run away because she “was too scared.” Id. at 96.

[8] A little after 2:00 a.m. on October 7, 2018, S.G., Simmons, and J.B. were sitting on the hotel bed when they heard a knock on the door. Simmons stood up to see who it was, and he informed S.G. that it was Wood at the door. S.G. said she was okay with Wood coming in their room, so Simmons opened the door. Lake then ran from behind Wood and entered the room. Simmons said, “Whoa, you can't come in here,” and Simmons and Lake began to argue. Tr. v. II at 189. Lake said, “I told you I was going to kill you.” Id. at 223. Wood sat in a nearby chair. S.G. told Lake to sit down and talk to her because she was the person who had banned him from their room. Lake told S.G. that “the time for talking was done.” Id. at 190.

[9] Lake walked toward Wood, who pulled a gun out of his pants and handed it to Lake. Lake was yelling, pointing the gun at Simmons, and asking “where the dope was.” Id. at 191. Lake then pointed the gun at S.G., and Simmons reached down to pick up a bat that was sitting on the floor. Lake fired the gun at Simmons, hitting his upper left shoulder. The bullet went through Simmons's lungs, aorta, and liver before exiting the right side of his abdomen. Simmons fell to the ground and died.

[10] J.B. began screaming and ran to the bathroom. Lake grabbed S.G. by the throat and pointed the gun in her face. He “want[ed] to know where the dope” was. Id. at 193. S.G. told him it was probably in Simmons's pockets. Lake pointed the gun at S.G. and told her to look through Simmons's pockets. S.G. complied and handed Lake the methamphetamine she found. Lake then asked S.G. where her money was. Lake grabbed money from S.G.’s purse, walked to the bathroom, and took J.B.’s phone from her. Lake pointed the gun at S.B. and “made [her] promise that [she] wouldn't say it was him.” Id. at 195. Lake told S.G. and J.B., “If you guys say anything, I'm going to kill you.” Id. at 229. Lake, Wood, and Wood's brother left the room and walked back to the van. Lake climbed in the driver's seat and told Wife, “I did it.” Tr. v. III at 85. Back in the hotel room, S.G. called 9-1-1 and told them Lake had killed her boyfriend.

[11] On October 9, 2018, Lawrence Township police officers received a dispatch call regarding a suspicious person in a vehicle. The officers arrived on scene and saw a van parked in a vacant lot next to a trailer. The officers approached the vehicle on both sides and saw Wife asleep in the passenger seat and Lake asleep in the driver's seat with a gun on his lap. The officers arrested Lake, and Wife later assisted the officers in finding Wood.

[12] On October 10, 2018, the State charged Lake with one count of Murder,¹ one count of Felony Murder,² and three counts of armed robbery, as Level 3 felonies.³ The trial court subsequently allowed the State to join two other charges that were pending under another cause number; one charge was unlawful possession of a firearm by a serious violent felon,⁴ and the other was carrying a handgun without a license.⁵

[13] While Lake was awaiting trial, the trial court ordered Lake to have no contact with Wife, S.G., and J.B. On January 15, 2019, the State filed a Motion to Place Defendant in Deadlock ⁶ in which it alleged that Lake had violated the no contact order by contacting Wife on forty-four separate occasions. In one of those phone calls, Lake requested that Wife “come in and claim a gun, saying to her that she would have less penalties than what he is facing.” Tr. v. II at 55. Following a January 16 hearing on the motion, the trial court granted it and ordered Lake placed in deadlock. On February 14, 2019, Wife sent a signed note to the trial court which stated, in full, “[C]ould you please take the no contact order off, he is in jail and he can't hurt me and I want to talk to him.” App. v. IV at 5.

[14] At a September 13, 2019, hearing on Lake's motion to lift the deadlock, the trial court noted that “the reason” for the deadlock order was to “keep [Lake] from contacting witnesses that he's not allowed to contact,” which included Wife. Tr. v. II at 60. The court noted that it had listened to the recordings of the phone calls Lake had made to Wife and found them “disturbing.” Id. at 61. The trial court denied Lake's petition to lift the deadlock.

[15] During the jury trial in October 2021, Wife testified against Lake. The jury convicted Lake of murder, felony murder, three counts of armed robbery as Level 3 felonies, and possession of a firearm. The State filed a Presentence Investigation Report which disclosed that Lake had a criminal history that included convictions of crimes of violence. The report also disclosed that, while in custody of the Marion County Jail and the Department of Correction (“DOC”) pending trial, Lake had disciplinary incidents which included five assaults and a battery. The trial court found Lake's violent history to be an aggravator and sentenced him to an aggregate term of seventy-eight years in the DOC. The trial court also granted the State's request for the no contact orders for three witnesses—S.G., J.B. and Wife—to remain in place. Lake did not object to the extension of the no contact orders. However, Lake requested that the trial court remove the deadlock order, and the trial court granted that request. This appeal ensued.

Discussion and Decision

[16] Lake appeals the portion of the sentence extending the no contact order as to Wife. We review sentencing decisions that are within the statutory range only for an abuse of discretion. Nash v. State, 881 N.E.2d 1060, 1064 (Ind. Ct. App. 2008), trans. denied. “An abuse of discretion occurs when the decision is clearly against the logic and effect of the facts and circumstances before the court, or the reasonable, probable, and actual deductions to be drawn therefrom.” Id. (internal quotation and citation omitted).

[17] As an initial matter, the State asserts that Lake has waived his appeal of the extension of the no contact order by failing to object to it in the trial court. However, the extension of the no contact order was part of Lake's sentence. See I.C. § 35-38-1-30 (authorizing a sentencing court to require, “as a condition of a person's executed sentence, the person shall refrain from any direct or indirect contact with an individual”). And “it is the duty of the appellate courts to bring illegal sentences into compliance” regardless of whether a defendant raises the issue in the trial court. Trice v. State, 114 N.E.3d 496, 498 (Ind. Ct. App. 2018) (quoting Bell v. State, 59 N.E.3d 959, 962 (Ind. 2016)), trans. denied. Lake has not waived his appeal of the no contact order.

[18] “[T]here must be some nexus between [a] no contact order and the crime for which the defendant is being sentenced.” Howe v. State, 25 N.E.3d 210, 214 (Ind. Ct. App. 2015). Here, the evidence established that Lake threatened to harm and/or kill witnesses to his crime if they disclosed his identity and/or actions. Although Lake did not directly threaten Wife in that manner, it was reasonable for the trial court to deduce from the threats to the other witnesses and from Lake's violent criminal history that Lake would also threaten to harm Wife because she testified against him. The trial court did not abuse its discretion when it extended the no contact order regarding Wife.

[19] Affirmed.

FOOTNOTES

1.   Ind. Code § 35-42-1-1(1).

2.   I.C. § 35-42-1-1(2).

3.   I.C. § 35-42-5-1(a)(1).

4.   I.C. § 35-47-4-5(c).

5.   I.C. § 35-47-2-1.

6.   The parties do not define “deadlock.” From the State's Motion, it appears that “administrative deadlock” is an inmate status under which the inmate is prohibited from having “phone or mail privileges.” App. v. II at 112. However, in Lake's argument in support of his petition to lift the deadlock, his attorney argued that deadlock is “a form of solitary confinement” pursuant to which Lake was “alone in his cell up to 23 hours a day” without “access to radio or TV” or the ability to interact “with any of the other inmates.” Tr. v. II at 57.

Bailey, Judge.

Riley, J., and Vaidik, J., concur.