Areryaunna Naikwett James v. State of Indiana (mem. dec.) ( 2017 )

MEMORANDUM DECISION
Pursuant to Ind. Appellate Rule 65(D),
this Memorandum Decision shall not be FILED
regarded as precedent or cited before any Jul 25 2017, 7:22 am
court except for the purpose of establishing
CLERK
the defense of res judicata, collateral Indiana Supreme Court
Court of Appeals
estoppel, or the law of the case. and Tax Court
ATTORNEY FOR APPELLANT ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE
Donald J. Berger Curtis T. Hill, Jr.
Law Office of Donald J. Berger Attorney General of Indiana
South Bend, Indiana
Elizabeth M. Littlejohn
Deputy Attorney General
Indianapolis, Indiana
IN THE
COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA
Areryaunna Naikwett James, July 25, 2017
Appellant-Defendant, Court of Appeals Case No.
71A03-1702-CR-380
v. Appeal from the St. Joseph
Superior Court
State of Indiana, The Honorable Jeffrey L. Sanford,
Appellee-Plaintiff. Judge
Trial Court Cause No.
71D03-1506-F6-404
Najam, Judge.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 71A03-1702-CR-380 | July 25, 2017 Page 1 of 5
Statement of the Case
[1] Areryaunna Naikwett James appeals her conviction for forgery, a Level 6
felony, following a bench trial. James presents a single issue for our review,
namely, whether the State presented sufficient evidence to support her
conviction. We affirm.
Facts and Procedural History
[2] On June 12, 2015, James and Tige Fennessee shopped for landscaping
equipment at Weaver Ag and Lawn Equipment (“Weaver”) in South Bend.
Within five minutes of their arrival, James and Fennessee picked out a lawn
mower, a trimmer, and a “backpack blower” that they wanted to purchase. Tr.
at 14. Brett Kocsis, the general manager, assisted them with the purchases.
James wrote a check purporting to be from MutualBank in the amount of
$2,087.39 to Weaver. James’ name was not on the check. Instead, the name
on the check was Tracy Kring, and James had a temporary “paper ID”
indicating that her name was Kring and that she lived on Oak Park Drive in
South Bend. Id. at 15. After the purchase was complete, Weaver employees
Tyler Grasso and Joe Dobransky loaded the equipment into a blue Chevy 1500
pickup truck for James and Fennessee.
[3] The next day, on June 13, a man with the last name Peck arrived at Weaver
driving the same blue Chevy 1500 pickup truck. Peck picked out “almost
exactly the same equipment” for purchase as James and Fennessee had bought
the day before. Id. at 20. Peck wrote a check from 1st Source Bank for the
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 71A03-1702-CR-380 | July 25, 2017 Page 2 of 5
purchase. Kocsis was suspicious of the circumstances of James’ purchases the
day before, so he decided to take the 1st Source Bank check Peck wrote to a
nearby bank to convert it to a cashier’s check. Kocsis instructed Dobransky to
take his time loading the equipment onto Peck’s truck while he went to the
bank. After a manager at the 1st Source Bank told Kocsis that Peck’s check
could not be converted to a cashier’s check, Kocsis called Dobransky and told
him to unload the equipment from Peck’s truck. Kocsis then returned to
Weaver, took a photograph of the license plate on Peck’s truck, and told Peck
that Weaver could not accept his check as payment for the equipment. Peck
told Kocsis that he would return later with cash or a credit card, but he did not
return.
[4] Kocsis contacted officers with St. Joseph County Police Department to report
the events of June 12 and 13, and he gave officers the license plate number of
the blue Chevy 1500 truck. After an investigation, officers determined that the
check James had written on June 12 was a forgery, as the check was not a
legitimate check, did not include a valid account number, and did not have a
watermark. Kocsis identified James in a photographic array as the woman who
presented the MutualBank check with Kling’s name on it in the amount of
$2,087.39. In addition, officers determined that the truck belonged to
Fennessee, and Fennessee told the officers that James was “the potential
suspect” in their investigation. Id. at 55.
[5] The State charged James with counterfeiting, a Level 6 felony, and forgery, a
Level 6 felony. Following a bench trial, the trial court dismissed the
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 71A03-1702-CR-380 | July 25, 2017 Page 3 of 5
counterfeiting charge and convicted James of forgery, a Level 6 felony. The
trial court entered judgment of conviction and sentence accordingly. This
appeal ensued.
Discussion and Decision
[6] James contends that the State failed to present sufficient evidence to support her
conviction. Our standard of review on a claim of insufficient evidence is well-
established:
When reviewing a claim that the evidence introduced at trial was
insufficient to support a conviction, we consider only the
probative evidence and reasonable inferences that support the
trial court’s finding of guilt. Drane v. State, 867 N.E.2d 144 (Ind.
2007). We likewise consider conflicting evidence in the light
most favorable to the trial court’s finding. Wright v. State, 828
N.E.2d 904 (Ind. 2005). It is therefore not necessary that the
evidence overcome every reasonable hypothesis of innocence.
Drane, 867 N.E.2d at 147. Instead, we will affirm the conviction
unless no reasonable trier of fact could have found the elements
of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt. Jenkins v. State, 726
N.E.2d 268, 270 (Ind. 2000).
Gray v. State, 957 N.E.2d 171, 174 (Ind. 2011) (footnote omitted).
[7] To convict James of forgery, a Level 6 felony, the State was required to show
that she, with intent to defraud, made, uttered, or possessed a written
instrument in such a manner that it purported to have been made: (1) by
another person; (2) at another time; (3) with different provisions; or (4) by
authority of one who did not give authority. Ind. Code § 35-43-5-2 (2015).
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 71A03-1702-CR-380 | July 25, 2017 Page 4 of 5
James’ sole contention on appeal is that the evidence is insufficient to prove her
identity. We cannot agree.
[8] The State presented testimony from Kocsis, Dobransky, and Gresso that,
shortly after the offense, they identified James from a photographic array. In
addition, at trial, both Kocsis and Dobransky identified James as the woman
who wrote the fake check for the equipment on June 12, 2015. James’
contentions on appeal amount to a request that we reweigh the evidence or
reassess the credibility of witnesses, which we cannot do. We conclude that the
State presented sufficient evidence from which a reasonable fact-finder could
conclude that James committed forgery. See, e.g., Mardis v. State, 72 N.E.3d
936, 938 (Ind. Ct. App. 2017) (holding testimony of single witness sufficient to
prove shooter’s identity).
[9] Affirmed.
Kirsch, J., and Brown, J., concur.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 71A03-1702-CR-380 | July 25, 2017 Page 5 of 5