Tyler Miller v. State of Indiana

Citation: Not availableDocket: 19A-CR-768

Court: Indiana Court of Appeals; December 16, 2019; Indiana; State Appellate Court

Original Court Document: View Document

SummaryOriginalCytator Case TreatmentBackward CitatorAnalysis

EnglishEspañolSimplified EnglishEspañol Fácil

Tyler Miller appeals his convictions for murder, attempted robbery as a level 5 felony, and robbery as a level 3 felony, stemming from events on January 15, 2016. On that day, while working at the Cumberland Express Mart, clerk Khushwinder Singh was shot by Miller during a robbery attempt. Singh died shortly after from the gunshot wound. Following the shooting, Miller and an accomplice attempted another robbery at a nearby gas station. He was arrested later that evening.

Miller was charged with multiple offenses, including murder and robbery. The jury found him guilty of murder, a lesser included offense of robbery, and robbery as a level 3 felony. At sentencing, the prosecutor recommended a 60-year sentence for the murder, while Miller's defense sought the minimum sentence, highlighting his youth, lack of prior convictions, employment, and role as a caretaker for his mother. The court ultimately sentenced Miller to a total of 72 years, with consecutive sentences of 55 years for murder, 5 years for attempted robbery, and 12 years for robbery.

Miller argues for a correction of the abstract of judgment and sentencing order regarding his attempted robbery conviction and requests a reduction of his sentence based on Indiana Code 35-50-2-1.3. The court affirms the conviction and remands for the correction of the abstract.

Miller's sentencing order incorrectly reflects a conviction for robbery under Count III, while the jury actually found him guilty of attempted robbery. The court is instructed to amend the abstract of judgment and sentencing order to accurately show the conviction for attempted robbery as a level 5 felony. Miller asserts that Ind. Code. 35-50-2-1.3(c) prevents the trial court from imposing a sentence above the advisory for his attempted robbery conviction because it is served consecutively with other sentences. This statute requires the use of the appropriate advisory sentence for consecutive sentences of non-violent felonies. However, the reference to "the appropriate advisory sentence" in Ind. Code. 35-50-2-1.3(c) merely reflects older legislation that capped consecutive sentences for non-violent offenses at the advisory sentence for a higher felony class. The Indiana Supreme Court's decision in Robertson clarified that Ind. Code. 35-50-2-1.3(c) does not impose additional limitations on consecutive sentencing beyond those in Ind. Code. 35-50-1-2(c). Following amendments to the statute, the current provisions do not reference advisory sentences and do not restrict consecutive sentences for non-violent criminal conduct, particularly when the most serious crime is murder. The language Miller cites appears outdated, and even if considered, it does not prohibit the trial court’s sentence under Count III.

Miller argues that his seventy-two-year aggregate sentence is inappropriate given the nature of his offenses and his character, noting he was seventeen at the time, will be seventy-one upon earliest release, and that imprisonment negatively affects life expectancy. He acknowledges the seriousness of the offenses but claims the murder was impulsive and not premeditated. Additionally, he highlights his lack of prior criminal history, steady employment, and caregiving role for his mother. The State counters that Miller's sentence is justified, emphasizing the cold and senseless nature of the murder of Singh and the subsequent robbery at the Rich Oil station, arguing that his age does not merit a sentence reduction.

The court references Indiana Appellate Rule 7(B), which allows for sentence revision if deemed inappropriate based on the offense and offender's character. The burden lies with the defendant to prove inappropriateness. Relevant Indiana codes outline sentencing ranges for murder and felonies involved in Miller's case. 

The court details the offenses, describing the brutal murder of Singh followed by another robbery just hours later. Miller's background indicates some minor prior issues but overall shows a lack of extensive criminal history prior to these offenses. Despite his mother's supportive statements about his role as a caretaker, the Indiana risk assessment categorized him as high risk for reoffending. Ultimately, the court concludes that Miller has not met the burden to demonstrate that his sentence is inappropriate, affirming the sentence and remanding for an amended order to reflect his conviction for attempted robbery as a level 5 felony.