from the Marion Superior Court The Honorable Kurt Eisgruber,
Judge Trial Court Cause No. 49G01-1412-MR-53684
ATTORNEY FOR APPELLANT Megan Shipley Marion County Public
Defender Agency Indianapolis, Indiana
ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE Curtis T. Hill, Jr. Attorney General
of Indiana George P. Sherman Deputy Attorney General
Vaidik, Chief Judge.
Corey Bullock was charged with three counts relating to the
death of his girlfriend's infant daughter: murder,
aggravated battery, and neglect of a dependent. The jury hung
on the murder count but found him guilty on the other counts.
Following the trial court's declaration of a mistrial on
the murder count, the court allowed the State to retry
Bullock on all three counts, and the court found him guilty
of murder and neglect in a bench trial.
Bullock now appeals, arguing that the trial court entered
judgment of conviction after the first trial and the State
was therefore barred from retrying him according to the
statutory double-jeopardy principles discussed by the Indiana
Supreme Court in Cleary v. State, 23 N.E.3d 664
(Ind. 2015). Although there are Chronological Case Summary
(CCS) entries from the last day of the jury trial that
include the word "Judgment," the court clarified
shortly thereafter that it had not actually entered judgment
of conviction. Because there was no judgment of conviction,
the State was not barred from retrying Bullock on all three
counts. We therefore affirm the trial court.
and Procedural History
In July 2014, Bullock moved in with Apryl Hammer and her
infant daughter, Aiva McGee, in an Indianapolis apartment.
Bullock, who was not the father of Aiva, cared for Aiva while
Hammer worked. On September 30, Hammer went to work and left
nine-month-old Aiva in Bullock's care. Shortly after
Hammer left for work, Aiva stopped breathing. Bullock called
his mother, who then called 911. Aiva, who was covered in
bruises, was taken to Riley Hospital for Children and placed
on life support. Testing revealed that Aiva had experienced a
"significant and severe brain injury." Tr. Vol. III
p. 89. She had subdural and subarachnoid hemorrhages on both
sides of her head and retinal hemorrhages behind her left
eye. Aiva also had a lacerated liver and rib fractures that
were in the healing stages. Aiva was taken off life support
and passed away on October 2. The cause of death was
blunt-force injury of the head. The police interviewed
Bullock, and he denied inflicting the injuries on Aiva.
Rather, he claimed that Aiva "bang[ed] her head a
lot" when she crawled and moved around. Id. at
163. Bullock also said he had never seen Hammer harm Aiva.
Id. at 165.
In December 2014, the State charged Bullock with three counts
in connection with Aiva's death: Count I: murder, Count
II: Level 3 felony aggravated battery, and Count III: Level 3
felony neglect of a dependent resulting in serious bodily
injury. Bullock's jury trial was held from
October 31 to November 2, 2016. After several hours of
deliberations on November 2, the jury told the trial court
that it could not reach a verdict on the murder count but
that it had reached verdicts on the other counts. The jury
found Bullock guilty on Counts II and III, and the trial
court declared a mistrial as to Count I and set a
"pretrial conference" to discuss how to proceed
given the jury's verdicts. Supp. Tr. Vol. IV p. 3.
Neither party asked the court to enter judgment of conviction
on Counts II and III, and the trial court did not orally do
so either. In fact, the court never used the word
"judgment" or "conviction." Id.
at 2-5. And as Bullock concedes on appeal, there is
"[n]o written judgment . . . in the record"
entering judgment of conviction on Counts II and III.
Appellant's Br. p. 17. The following entries, however,
appear in the CCS:
of Guilty Appellant's App. Vol. II p. 17.
The pretrial conference was held the following week "to
determine a direction" for the case. Supp. Tr. Vol. IV
p. 9. The court reiterated that there were "guilty
findings" (not "convictions") for "two of
the three counts." Id. The trial court asked
the State how it wanted to proceed, and the prosecutor
responded, "Judge, we would like the murder count to be
reset for trial [because] the State does intend to move
forward with trial." Id. Defense counsel said
she planned to file a motion to dismiss raising "double
jeopardy." Id. The court set a trial date for a
few months out and said it would hold a hearing on the
double-jeopardy issue once both sides briefed the issue.
Defense counsel then filed a motion to dismiss alleging that
"[d]ouble jeopardy precludes retrial of the Defendant on
Count I, Murder, due to the conviction of the lesser included
offense of Count II, Aggravated Battery."
Appellant's App. Vol. II p. 186 (emphasis added). The
State filed a response arguing that there was no
double-jeopardy violation in retrying Bullock because the
trial court had not yet entered ...