Ronald J. Lampitok v. State of Indiana (11/16/04 IndCtApp) [Criminal Law & Procedure]
Kirsch, Judge
Following a jury trial, Ronald J. Lampitok appeals his conviction for carjacking, See footnote a Class B felony, raising the following restated issues:Posted by Marcia Oddi at November 16, 2004 02:02 PM
I. Whether the State’s manner of charging Lampitok with multiple charges stemming from one incident deprived him of due process.II Whether the prosecutor’s comments in his opening statement constituted misconduct and prejudiced Lampitok.
III. Whether evidence that Lampitok and his nephew, Dominic Fuller, flagged down a motorist in a park, forced that driver to the backseat, and, after releasing the victim, drove the vehicle to Illinois was sufficient to support Lampitok’s carjacking conviction.
IV. Whether the trial court erroneously limited Lampitok’s cross- examination of the victim and deprived him of presenting his defense.
V. Whether the trial court erred when it admitted into evidence alleged hearsay testimony that Fuller instructed Lampitok’s girlfriend to locate and dispose of a gun.
VI. Whether Lampitok was deprived of a fair trial because the trial judge either fell asleep or appeared to do so by having his eyes shut during a portion of defense counsel’s closing argument.
VII. Whether the jury rendered inconsistent verdicts when it found Lampitok guilty of carjacking and Class C felony robbery, but acquitted him of kidnapping and criminal confinement.
VIII. Whether Lampitok’s eighteen-year executed sentence for carjacking was inappropriate.
The State cross-appeals, claiming that it proved two prior unrelated felonies as defined by IC 35-50-2-8, and, therefore, the trial court erred when it granted Lampitok’s motion for a directed verdict on the habitual offender charge. We affirm. * * *
BAKER, J., and ROBB, J., concur.