Rayshaun Melvin Jones v. State of Indiana (mem. dec.) ( 2018 )

MEMORANDUM DECISION
Pursuant to Ind. Appellate Rule 65(D),
this Memorandum Decision shall not be FILED
regarded as precedent or cited before any Oct 26 2018, 9:23 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
Stephenie K. Gookins Curtis T. Hill, Jr.
Cate, Terry & Gookins LLC Attorney General of Indiana
Carmel, Indiana
George P. Sherman
Supervising Deputy Attorney
General
Indianapolis, Indiana
IN THE
COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA
Rayshaun Melvin Jones, October 26, 2018
Appellant-Defendant, Court of Appeals Case No.
18A-CR-667
v. Appeal from the Hamilton Circuit
Court
State of Indiana, The Honorable Paul A. Felix,
Appellee-Plaintiff. Judge
Trial Court Cause No.
29C01-1605-F5-3732
Robb, Judge.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 18A-CR-667 | October 26, 2018 Page 1 of 14
Case Summary and Issues
[1] Following a jury trial, Rayshaun Jones was convicted of fraud on a financial
institution, a Level 5 felony. The trial court sentenced Jones to four years with
545 days executed in the Indiana Department of Correction and the balance
suspended without probation. Jones now appeals his conviction and sentence,
raising two issues for our review: (1) whether the evidence is sufficient to
sustain his conviction; and (2) whether the trial court abused its discretion in
sentencing him. Concluding the evidence is sufficient and the trial court did not
abuse its discretion in sentencing, we affirm.
Facts and Procedural History
[2] On May 4, 2016, Forum Credit Union received an online loan application for
$47,195.00. The loan application listed the name of the applicant as “Rayshaun
M. Jones” and provided a social security number and a date of birth. Exhibit
Binder, Volume 4 at 4, State’s Exhibit No. 1. Two days later, on May 6, Ellen
Rosebrock, an employee at the Forum Credit Union branch in Carmel, received
an email from Forum’s consumer lending department regarding Jones’ loan
application. The email stated that Jones would stop by the branch to open an
account and to finalize a $47,000 loan in order to purchase a Porsche, as well as
to obtain a personal, unsecured loan for an additional $15,000.
[3] Later the same day, Jones arrived at the branch and Rosebrock informed Jones
that she was aware of his loan requests and his intent to open an account with
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 18A-CR-667 | October 26, 2018 Page 2 of 14
Forum. Jones said “yes.” Transcript of Evidence, Volume 2 at 110. Jones
further indicated that his name, social security number, and date of birth were
correct on the loan application. Rosebrock then informed Jones that in order to
open an account with Forum, he would need to provide two forms of
identification, such as a driver’s license and credit card bearing his name. Jones
provided a debit card and a Michigan driver’s license. Using this information,
Rosebrock opened an account for Jones and Jones provided Rosebrock with a
document that he stated was a purchase agreement for the Porsche. Rosebrock
noticed that the document had the “exact same layout” as a document
submitted to Forum “the day before” as part of a fraudulent request to obtain
an auto loan. Id. at 121. Rosebrock testified that the document had:
the exact same layout with the exact same framing, center
column, signature lines, disclaimer on the left, font size and type.
The only difference was the name of the dealership and the sales
price and the car being purchased.
Id.
[4] Suspicious, Rosebrock alerted Forum’s fraud department by email and Forum
reported the activity to the Carmel Police Department. During this time,
Rosebrock continued to ask Jones about his job since Jones stated on his loan
application that he was an engineer. Jones indicated that he “didn’t know what
type of engineer he was[,]” and when Rosebrock inquired, “are you
mechanical, electrical?” Jones responded, “oh, yeah, yeah, that one.” Id. at
125. Jones also claimed to earn over $9,000 a month and provided Rosebrock
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 18A-CR-667 | October 26, 2018 Page 3 of 14
with an invalid Texas address as his former residence. Jones then provided a
Michigan address, but the address did not match the address on his driver’s
license.
[5] Soon thereafter, Lieutenant Timothy Byrne of the Carmel Police Department
arrived at the branch. Lieutenant Byrne spoke with Jones and requested his
identification. Jones provided Lieutenant Byrne with a Michigan driver’s
license and stated that he was opening a savings account while denying having
applied for any loans. Jones further stated that he recently moved to
Indianapolis, but he could not provide Lieutenant Byrne with an address or “a
complete social security number.” Id. at 157. Lieutenant Byrne removed Jones
from the bank, placed him in handcuffs, and transported him to the Carmel
Police Department.
[6] The State charged Jones with identity deception and fraud on a financial
institution, both Level 5 felonies. The case proceeded to a jury trial on January
8, 2018. Following the presentation of the State’s evidence, Jones made an
uncontested motion for a directed verdict as to identity deception and the trial
court granted the motion. The jury subsequently found Jones guilty of fraud on
a financial institution.
[7] On March 15, 2018, the trial court entered judgment of conviction and
sentenced Jones to four years in the Department of Correction with 545 days
executed and the balance suspended without probation. Jones now appeals his
conviction and sentence.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 18A-CR-667 | October 26, 2018 Page 4 of 14
Discussion and Decision
I. Sufficiency of the Evidence
A. Standard of Review
[8] In reviewing the sufficiency of the evidence to support a conviction, we neither
reweigh the evidence nor judge the credibility of witnesses. Willis v. State, 27
N.E.3d 1065, 1066 (Ind. 2015). We consider only the evidence supporting the
judgment and any reasonable inferences drawn therefrom, id., and we will
affirm the conviction “if there is substantial evidence of probative value
supporting each element of the crime from which a reasonable trier of fact
could have found the defendant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.” Walker v.
State, 998 N.E.2d 724, 726 (Ind. 2013) (citation omitted).
B. Fraud on a Financial Institution
[9] Jones contends the State failed to present sufficient evidence to sustain a
conviction for fraud on a financial institution, a Level 5 felony. We disagree.
[10] Indiana Code section 35-43-5-8 provides, in relevant part:
(a) A person who knowingly executes, or attempts to execute, a
scheme or artifice:
***
(2) to obtain any of the money, funds, credits, assets,
securities, or other property owned by or under the
custody or control of a state or federally chartered or
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 18A-CR-667 | October 26, 2018 Page 5 of 14
federally insured financial institution by means of false or
fraudulent pretenses, representations, or promises;
commits a Level 5 felony.1
[11] The evidence most favorable to Jones’ conviction reveals the following. Forum
received an online application on May 4, 2016, for a loan of $47,195.00. The
loan application listed the name of the applicant as “Rayshaun M. Jones” and
provided a social security number and a date of birth. Two days later, Forum
employee Rosebrock received an email from Forum’s consumer lending
department stating that Jones would stop by the Carmel branch to open an
account and to finalize two loans. Jones arrived at the branch that same day
and when Rosebrock informed Jones that she was aware of his loan requests
and his intent to open an account with Forum, Jones responded, “yes.” Tr.,
Vol. 2 at 110. Jones indicated that his name, social security number, and date
of birth were correct on the loan application and he provided two forms of
identification to open a savings account. Jones provided an invalid Texas
address as his former residence and was apparently unsure of what type of
engineer he was, despite his loan application stating that was his occupation
and source of his purported $9,000 monthly income. And finally, Jones
presented a purchase agreement which had the “exact same layout” as a
1
There is no dispute as to whether Forum constitutes a “federally chartered or federally insured financial
institution.” Ind. Code § 35-43-5-8(a)(2).
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 18A-CR-667 | October 26, 2018 Page 6 of 14
document submitted to Forum the day before as part of a fraudulent request to
obtain an auto loan. Id. at 121.
[12] On appeal, Jones contends there is insufficient evidence from which the jury
could infer that he knowingly attempted to execute a scheme or artifice to
obtain money or funds from Forum. Specifically, Jones argues there are holes
in the State’s evidence such as the facts that Jones did not physically hand
Rosebrock the application, Rosebrock did not actually know who completed
the online application, and there was no physical or digital signature on the
loan application.
[13] First, an online loan application was completed in Jones’ name and bearing his
date of birth. As Jones himself readily admits, he entered Forum with the
intent to open an account on the same day as the online loan applicant was
scheduled to complete the loan application and open an account as a
prerequisite to completing the loan application. Rosebrock met Jones and
informed him that she was aware of his loan applications and intent to open an
account, to which Jones responded “yes.” Tr., Vol. 2 at 110. Jones was also
shown the online loan application and indicated that the information was
correct.
[14] We are unconvinced by Jones’ repeated attempts to emphasize the importance
of the fact the loan application remained unsigned. Jones fails to provide a
cogent argument or citation to authority as to why this fact renders the State’s
evidence insufficient. See Ind. Appellate Rule 46(A)(8) (providing that an
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 18A-CR-667 | October 26, 2018 Page 7 of 14
appellant’s arguments must be supported by cogent reasoning, citation to
authority, and a clear showing of how the arguments relate to the particular
facts under review). Regardless, Rosebrock testified that Jones inspected the
application and indicated the information was correct. From this evidence, it
was reasonable for the jury to infer that Jones was in fact the same Jones who
completed the online loan application.
[15] Secondly, the evidence revealed Jones was unsure of his occupation or source
of income, the loan application provided an incorrect social security number
alongside Jones’ name and date of birth, Jones was unable to provide
Lieutenant Byrne with “a complete social security number[,]” id. at 157, and
Jones’ purchase agreement had the “exact same layout” as a document
submitted to Forum the day before as part of a fraudulent request to obtain an
auto loan, id. at 121. This evidence permitted reasonable inferences that Jones
provided false information in his loan application and the purported purchase
agreement was fraudulent and either inference satisfies the elements of Indiana
Code section 35-43-5-8.
[16] In sum, we view Jones’ challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence as little
more than an invitation to reweigh the evidence and to conclude that his
version of events was more reasonable. As always, we must decline Jones’
invitation. Willis, 27 N.E.3d at 1066; Jones v. State, 22 N.E.3d 877, 879 (Ind. Ct.
App. 2014) (“[T]he question on appeal is whether the inferences supporting the
verdict were reasonable, not whether other, ‘more reasonable’ inferences could
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 18A-CR-667 | October 26, 2018 Page 8 of 14
have been drawn.”). Therefore, we conclude the State presented sufficient
evidence to sustain Jones’ conviction of fraud on a financial institution.
II. Sentencing Discretion
[17] Jones next alleges the trial court abused its discretion in his sentencing by
failing to identify certain mitigating factors. Subject to the appellate courts’
review and revise power, sentencing decisions are within the sound discretion
of the trial court and we review only for an abuse of discretion. Anglemyer v.
State, 868 N.E.2d 482, 490 (Ind. 2007), clarified on reh’g, 875 N.E.2d 218 (2007).
An abuse of discretion occurs if the decision is “clearly against the logic and
effect of the facts and circumstances before the court, or the reasonable,
probable, and actual deductions to be drawn therefrom.” Id.[18] Our supreme court explained in Anglemyer:
One way in which a trial court may abuse its discretion is failing
to enter a sentencing statement at all. Other examples include
entering a sentencing statement that explains reasons for
imposing a sentence—including a finding of aggravating and
mitigating factors if any—but the record does not support the
reasons, or the sentencing statement omits reasons that are
clearly supported by the record and advanced for consideration,
or the reasons given are improper as a matter of law.
Id. at 490-91.
[19] The finding of a mitigating factor is discretionary, and the trial court is not
obligated to weigh mitigating evidence the way an appellant suggests it should
be weighed. Fugate v. State, 608 N.E.2d 1370, 1374 (Ind. 1993). Furthermore,
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 18A-CR-667 | October 26, 2018 Page 9 of 14
if the trial court declines to find the existence of a mitigating factor, it is not
obligated to explain why it has found that the factor does not exist. Id. When
presenting the question of whether a trial court failed to identify mitigating
factors on appeal, an appellant must “establish that the mitigating evidence is
not only supported by the record but also that the mitigating evidence is
significant.” Anglemyer, 875 N.E.2d at 221.
[20] Jones claims that the trial court erred in failing to identify the following as
mitigating factors: (1) his “overall low score on the Indiana Risk Assessment
System (IRAS)[;]” (2) his full time job and a part time job; (3) his last felony
conviction occurred in 2009; (4) his testimony that “he dealt with outstanding
Michigan warrants prior to sentencing” and evidence that “Michigan would
likely accept transfer and supervision of electronic home monitoring[,]” and (5)
there was no victim of this crime because he did not actually receive any
money. Appellant’s Brief at 13-14.
[21] Here, we conclude Jones has failed to demonstrate that any of the purported
mitigating factors are significant. First, our supreme court has explained that
although trial courts may “employ such results in formulating the manner in
which a sentence is to be served[,]” the IRAS scores “are not intended to serve
as aggravating or mitigating circumstances[.]” Malenchik v. State, 928 N.E.2d
564, 575 (Ind. 2010). Second, our reading of the trial court’s sentencing
statement leads us to believe that the trial court did in fact consider Jones’
employment as a mitigating factor in Jones’ sentence, explaining “it sounds like
you’re potentially even working more than full time from the evidence that you
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 18A-CR-667 | October 26, 2018 Page 10 of 14
have presented to me. Once again, that is good.” Tr., Vol. 2 at 250. Third,
even a limited criminal history is a proper aggravating factor, Atwood v. State,
905 N.E.2d 479, 488 (Ind. Ct. App. 2009), trans. denied, and thus the trial court
was not required to consider a nine-year period since Jones’ last felony
conviction as mitigating. Fourth, there is nothing significant about Jones
having responded to his outstanding warrants. As the trial court explained, “it
took this conviction and it took this potential sentencing hearing to get [Jones]
to finally resolve warrants that have been outstanding for months and months,
if not years.” Tr., Vol. 3 at 2. Fifth and finally, we find nothing significant
about the fact that there was “no victim of this crime . . . Jones did not receive
any money.” Appellant’s Br. at 14. Jones was arrested in the attempt to
fraudulently obtain several large loans and the fact that he was apprehended in
the process does not oblige the trial court to credit his failure.
[22] Jones also claims the trial court “became increasingly frustrated” with him prior
to imposing his sentence, and Jones apparently takes issue with the trial court’s
admonishment:
I’ve now given you an opportunity to converse with the Court,
tell me whatever you wanted me to know. I’ve listened to the
evidence that was presented. I’ve listened to argument of both
counsel. And it is now the Court’s turn to talk. If I ask you a
question, you of course can answer. If you interrupt me, I will
consider that to be contempt of this Court. All right? I’ve given
you many opportunities to speak. It’s now my turn. Do not
interrupt me. If you have something that you want to say, write
it down and ask me when I’m done.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 18A-CR-667 | October 26, 2018 Page 11 of 14
Appellant’s Br. at 14 (citing Tr., Vol. 2 at 247-48). However, Jones has failed to
provide cogent argument or citation to authority as to how the trial court’s
admonishment related to his sentence or why it rendered the sentence an abuse
of discretion. See Ind. Appellate Rule 46(A)(8).
[23] Regardless, directly prior to issuing the admonishment, the trial court engaged
Jones in the following colloquy:
[The Court]: According to the Pre-Sentence Investigation he
now currently lives with his mom in Romulus,
Michigan. When did that happen?
[Counsel]: That’s when you said in December, right?
[Jones]: Right. The last few times I came to court in
December or whenever, December, I let them know
that my, the people I was staying with in New
Palestine, they was [sic] separating and they was
[sic] ending their lease but they didn't so ——
[Counsel]: When did you go back to Michigan, just answer
that.
[Jones]: Oh, whenever I did?
[Counsel]: Yeah. When did you go back to Michigan?
[Jones]: When did I go back to Michigan?
[Counsel]: Late December?
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 18A-CR-667 | October 26, 2018 Page 12 of 14
[Jones]: Yeah, late December, around Christmas. It was the
holiday. I asked and it was so short notice.
[The Court]: All right. So when did the Court authorize you to
move back to Michigan?
[Jones]: They didn’t.
[The Court]: All right.
[Jones]: I didn’t -- I didn’t --
[The Court]: So you went back to Michigan in late December
and then almost immediately after getting back to
Michigan, you picked up the false reporting charge.
Is that right?
[Jones]: Yes, Sir.
[The Court]: All right. I just wanted to make sure that my review
of the record was complete. All right. So I think
I’ve cleared up the final question that I had.
Tr., Vol. 2 at 246-47. Thus, placed in context, we view the trial court’s
admonishment as nothing more than an exercise of its duty to maintain
appropriate decorum and order in the courtroom. See Mengon v. State, 505
N.E.2d 788, 792 (Ind. 1987) (noting that a trial court has a duty “to manage the
proceedings and take responsible steps to ensure that proper discipline and
order exist in the courtroom”).
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 18A-CR-667 | October 26, 2018 Page 13 of 14
[24] Therefore, because Jones has failed to demonstrate that any of the purported
mitigating factors are significant, we conclude the trial court did not abuse its
discretion in sentencing. 2
Conclusion
[25] The evidence is sufficient to sustain Jones’ conviction of fraud on a financial
institution and the trial court did not abuse its discretion in sentencing.
Accordingly, we affirm Jones’ conviction and sentence.
[26] Affirmed.
Baker, J., and May, J., concur.
2
Interspersed within Jones’ abuse of discretion argument are references to the inappropriate sentence
standard of Indiana Appellate Rule 7(B). However, as our supreme court has made clear, and as we have
repeatedly explained, abuse of discretion and inappropriate sentence claims are to be analyzed separately.
King v. State, 894 N.E.2d 265, 267 (Ind. Ct. App. 2008) (citing Anglemyer, 868 N.E.2d at 491). As Jones has
not made an independent 7(B) argument, we do not address it.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 18A-CR-667 | October 26, 2018 Page 14 of 14