127-year sentence upheld in ‘horrific’ torture, murder case

A man who brutally tortured and murdered a woman and seriously injured and robbed another individual will keep his 127-year sentence behind bars, the Court of Appeals of Indiana has affirmed.

Mario M. Angulo Jr. was charged and convicted of murder, Level 2 felony robbery resulting in serious bodily injury and two counts of Level 3 felony criminal confinement.

Angulo’s convictions stem from a violent encounter with two individuals ­— Kimberly Dyer and Robert Porter — at an Elkhart County resident’s home that was often frequented for the purpose of using drugs.

While at the house in October 2019, Dyer invited Porter, who was selling marijuana in exchange for jewelry. Dyer then gave another individual two sheets of paper with a list of names of some individuals present believed to be providing information to the police about criminal activity.

Angulo, who had close ties with the Latin Kings and was 19 at the time of the offense, and two other men then went through Dyer’s belongings on suspicion that she was working with police, and they discovered a notebook with the names of most of the people who were at the house along with a design of the residence.

Dyer was then ordered into the basement of the home and several individuals, including Angulo, interrogated her about the notebook.

Angulo and two others, including Donald Owen, then brutally tortured and killed Dyer, who suffered 83 distinct injuries, stuffed her body into a sealed trash bin and dumped her body in a remote location in Michigan. Porter was also terrorized, wounded and robbed.

In December 2019, Angulo was charged with Dyer’s murder, Level 2 felony robbery resulting in serious bodily injury to Porter and two counts of Level 3 felony criminal confinement that named Porter and Dyer as the victims.

The state also indicated its intent to seek a sentence of life imprisonment without parole. However, Angulo was sentenced to 65 years for murder, 30 years for robbery and 16 years on each count of criminal confinement. He was ordered to serve the sentences consecutively.

On appeal, Angulo asserted that the Elkhart Circuit Court abused its discretion in granting the state’s motion for joinder that permitted Angulo to be tried with a codefendant, one of the other individuals who committed the murder, which he claimed impinged on his right to “compel witnesses to testify on his behalf.”

The COA rejected that argument, noting that Angulo had not established that Owen would have been willing to waive his right against self-incrimination had he been tried separately from Angulo.

“In fact, Owen chose not to testify in his own defense, and there is no reason to believe that he would have been any more willing to risk incriminating himself had he been tried separately,” Judge Robert Altice wrote.

The Court of Appeals ultimately concluded that the evidence established that Angulo committed “four extremely serious crimes” against the victims in Mario M. Angulo, Jr. v. State of Indiana, 21A-CR-1465.

Angulo also argued that the trial court erred in granting the state’s motion in limine that unfairly limited his right to cross-examine and impeach Porter, and that he was denied his right to present a defense because the trial court restricted him from questioning a witness on direct examination.

Angulo further claimed that there was insufficient evidence to support the robbery conviction, and that his sentence was inappropriate in light of the nature of the offenses and his character.

The COA concluded that Angulo waived his argument that the trial court improperly restricted his right to cross-examine Porter. It also rejected Angulo’s contention that the trial court’s exclusion of a law enforcement commander’s testimony unfairly impinged on his right to present a “meaningful defense.”

Finally, the appellate court found Angulo failed to establish that his sentence is inappropriate.

“The horrific nature of Angulo’s offenses in this case, as well as his dismissive attitude towards the value of Dyer’s life, speak for themselves, and Angulo’s known but unaddressed pattern of using methamphetamine does nothing to change that,” Altice wrote.

“Finally, we reject Angulo’s reliance on cases that prohibit the death penalty and life sentences for juveniles. Angulo was nineteen years old when he committed the offenses, and the trial court accounted for his age in its sentencing statement,” Altice continued. “And while our Supreme Court and the United States Supreme Court have held that juveniles should be treated differently from adults, Angulo was not a juvenile when he committed the offenses. The cases on which Angulo relies do not stand for the principle that young adults are to be afforded the protections given to juveniles.”

Editor’s note: This article has been corrected.