Kevin James Rent v. State of Indiana (mem. dec.) ( 2018 )

MEMORANDUM DECISION
Pursuant to Ind. Appellate Rule 65(D),
this Memorandum Decision shall not be
regarded as precedent or cited before any FILED
court except for the purpose of establishing Jul 30 2018, 10:16 am
the defense of res judicata, collateral CLERK
estoppel, or the law of the case. Indiana Supreme Court
Court of Appeals
and Tax Court
ATTORNEY FOR APPELLANT ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE
Michael G. Moore Curtis T. Hill, Jr.
Indianapolis, Indiana Attorney General of Indiana
Lee M. Stoy, Jr.
Deputy Attorney General
Indianapolis, Indiana
IN THE
COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA
Kevin James Rent, July 30, 2018
Appellant-Defendant, Court of Appeals Case No.
49A04-1712-CR-2914
v. Appeal from the Marion Superior
Court
State of Indiana, The Honorable Shatrese M.
Appellee-Plaintiff. Flowers, Judge
Trial Court Cause No.
49G20-1604-F2-12810
Bradford, Judge.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 49A04-1712-CR-2914 | July 30, 2018 Page 1 of 8
Case Summary
[1] On April 1, 2016, members of the Indianapolis Metropolitan Police
Department (“IMPD”) executed a search warrant on a home located in
Indianapolis. Upon doing so, the officers recovered large amounts of cocaine
and marijuana. They also recovered multiple other items suggesting that the
drugs were being distributed from the home. Kevin James Rent was arrested at
the scene. He was subsequently charged with and found guilty of numerous
drug-related charges. On appeal, Rent contends that the evidence is insufficient
to sustain his convictions. Concluding otherwise, we affirm.
Facts and Procedural History
[2] On April 1, 2016, IMPD SWAT and narcotics officers executed a search
warrant on a home located on Washington Boulevard in Indianapolis. As they
approached the home, officers noticed the “overpowering odor of raw
marijuana” emanating from inside. Tr. Vol. III, p. 40. Upon entering the
home, Lieutenant Charles Deblaso observed Anthony Ector standing at the
bottom of a stairwell holding an AK-style rifle. Instead of obeying Lieutenant
Deblaso’s instruction to drop the weapon, Ector threw it towards a nearby
couch and attempted to run. He was almost immediately secured by the
officers and taken into custody. Soon after Ector was secured, the officers came
into contact with Rent and Charles Polk. Officers secured the home and took
Rent and Polk into custody before conducting their search.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 49A04-1712-CR-2914 | July 30, 2018 Page 2 of 8
[3] While searching the home, officers found (1) large quantities of both marijuana
and cocaine; (2) items commonly used in the division and packaging of drugs
for sale; (3) two firearms; and (4) numerous items containing Rent, Polk, and
Ector’s names and/or images. In the living room, the first room one enters
through the front door, officers found a grocery bag containing 146.6 grams of
cocaine sitting in plain view on the couch1 and a Glock handgun with an
extended magazine sticking up from between the couch cushions. In addition,
officers found “marijuana roaches” and Rent’s driver’s license sitting on a
coffee table that was placed “right in front of the couch.” Tr. Vol. III, pp. 220,
221. Officers also recovered the rifle that Ector threw when Lieutenant Deblaso
entered the home and found a television displaying the live feed of images from
various surveillance cameras set up in and around the home.
[4] In the kitchen, officers found a duffle bag containing several bags of marijuana
on the counter and a trash bag containing a brick of marijuana in a cabinet.
The total weight of the marijuana was 6794.83 grams. 2 Officers also found
Dormin, an over-the-counter sleep aid commonly used to cut heroin, and
baking soda.3 In yet another cabinet, Officers found a box containing Polk’s
resume, pictures of Polk and Ector, and a credit card belonging to Rent.
Officers also found two scales, one having cocaine residue on it and the other
1
The cocaine was divided into smaller packages inside the grocery bag.
2
6794.83 grams equals approximately 14.98 pounds.
3
Baking soda is commonly used to cut cocaine.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 49A04-1712-CR-2914 | July 30, 2018 Page 3 of 8
flakes of marijuana. Finally, the stove was pushed up against the back door,
blocking access to the door.
[5] Officers found two more scales in the dining room. One of these scales had
cocaine and heroin residue on it and the other marijuana. Officers also found a
heat sealer and heat sealing bags. In addition, rather than being set up as a
place where one might eat meals, the dining room was set up like “a weight
room area” with a weight bench and a punching bag. Tr. Vol. III, p. 27.
[6] Officers found very few personal belongings in the rest of the home. Only one
bedroom contained a bed. A laptop was found in a different bedroom. The
closets had little to nothing in them and only a scarce amount of clothing was
found in the home. The contents of the home matched those commonly found
in a home being used as a “trap house.”4 Tr. Vol. IV, p. 87.
[7] Upon searching Rent’s person, officers found $1120 in his pocket, including
fifty-two $20 bills. They also found a key to the home. Officers recovered a
small amount of cocaine from inside Rent’s vehicle, which was parked close to
the home and blocked in the driveway by Ector’s vehicle.
4
A trap house is not lived in but is commonly used to facilitate the manufacture, distribution, and use of
illegal drugs. See Tr. Vol. III, p. 37; Tr. Vol. IV, pp. 87–88. Some indictors of a trap house are a lack of
personal items, such as clothing and furniture; lack of food in the refrigerator; the presence of security
cameras; and iron security or barricaded doors, leaving only one way in or out of the home. See Tr. Vol. III,
p. 37; Tr. Vol. IV, pp. 87–89. It is common for multiple drug dealers to work out of a trap house and only
those dealers typically have keys to the home. See Tr. Vol. IV, pp. 87–89.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 49A04-1712-CR-2914 | July 30, 2018 Page 4 of 8
[8] On April 5, 2016, the State charged Rent with Count I – Level 2 felony dealing
in cocaine, Count II – Level 3 felony possession of cocaine, Count III – Level 4
felony unlawful possession of a firearm by a serious violent felon, Count IV –
Level 5 felony dealing in marijuana, Count V – Level 6 felony possession of
marijuana, and Count VI – Level 5 felony possession of a narcotic drug, i.e.,
heroin. Following a jury trial, Rent was found guilty as charged. The trial
court subsequently vacated Rent’s convictions under Counts II and V and
downgraded his conviction in Count VI to a Level 6 felony. The trial court
imposed an aggregate twenty-year sentence with eighteen years executed and
two years suspended to probation.
Discussion and Decision
[9] In challenging his convictions, Rent contends that the evidence is insufficient to
prove that he possessed the contraband at issue.
When reviewing the sufficiency of the evidence to support a
conviction, appellate courts must consider only the probative
evidence and reasonable inferences supporting the verdict. It is
the fact-finder’s role, not that of appellate courts, to assess
witness credibility and weigh the evidence to determine whether
it is sufficient to support a conviction. To preserve this structure,
when appellate courts are confronted with conflicting evidence,
they must consider it most favorably to the trial court’s ruling.
Appellate courts affirm the conviction unless no reasonable fact-
finder could find the elements of the crime proven beyond a
reasonable doubt. It is therefore not necessary that the evidence
overcome every reasonable hypothesis of innocence. The
evidence is sufficient if an inference may reasonably be drawn
from it to support the verdict.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 49A04-1712-CR-2914 | July 30, 2018 Page 5 of 8
Drane v. State, 867 N.E.2d 144, 146–47 (Ind. 2007) (citations, emphasis, and
quotations omitted). “In essence, we assess only whether the verdict could be
reached based on reasonable inferences that may be drawn from the evidence
presented.” Baker v. State, 968 N.E.2d 227, 229 (Ind. 2012) (emphasis in
original).
[10] The State prosecuted its case against Rent under the theory of constructive
possession. “A defendant is in the constructive possession of [contraband]
when the State shows that the defendant has both (i) the intent to maintain
dominion and control over the [contraband] and (ii) the capability to maintain
dominion and control over the [contraband].” Gee v. State, 810 N.E.2d 338, 340
(Ind. 2004) (citing Lampkins v. State, 682 N.E.2d 1268, 1275 (Ind. 1997)). In
this case, Rent concedes that he had the capability to maintain dominion and
control over the contraband. He argues, however, that the State failed to prove
the intent prong of constructive possession.
[11] “When a defendant’s possession of the premises on which drugs are found is
not exclusive, then the inference of intent to maintain dominion and control
over the drugs ‘must be supported by additional circumstances pointing to the
defendant’s knowledge of the nature of the controlled substances and their
presence.’” Id. at 341 (quoting Lampkins, 682 N.E.2d at 1275). A non-exclusive
list of these “additional circumstances” include: “(1) incriminating statements
made by the defendant, (2) attempted flight or furtive gestures, (3) location of
substances like drugs in settings that suggest manufacturing, (4) proximity of the
contraband to the defendant, (5) location of the contraband within the
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 49A04-1712-CR-2914 | July 30, 2018 Page 6 of 8
defendant’s plain view, and (6) the mingling of the contraband with other items
owned by the defendant.” Id. at 341, 344 (citing Henderson v. State, 715 N.E.2d
833, 836 (Ind. 1999)).
[12] The evidence presented by the State supports the inference that Rent had
knowledge of the nature and presence of the contraband. The home had the
characteristics of a trap house, i.e., a house that is used for the distribution of
illegal drugs. Additionally, the vast majority of the contraband was in plain
view and Rent’s possessions were found in close proximity to the contraband.
The smell of raw marijuana was also strong within the home and scales used to
weigh the drugs for sale were found in numerous rooms. The evidence further
revealed that Rent possessed a large amount of cash, much of which was $20
bills. The State presented evidence that it is common for drug dealers to have a
large number of $20 bills because many drugs are commonly packaged for sale
in $20 increments. In addition, when initially confronted by the officers, Rent
indicated that “he was just stopping by.” Tr. Vol. III, p. 44. The evidence,
however, indicated otherwise as he had a key to the home and his vehicle was
parked close to the home and was blocked by another vehicle. Rent’s
possession of a key suggests that he was dealing drugs from the home as only a
dealer, and not an individual simply purchasing drugs, would typically have a
key to the home.
[13] The State’s evidence supports the inference that Rent had knowledge of the
nature and presence of the weapon and the drugs found within the home.
Rent’s claim to the contrary effectively amounts to an invitation to reweigh the
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 49A04-1712-CR-2914 | July 30, 2018 Page 7 of 8
evidence, which we will not do. See Stewart v. State, 768 N.E.2d 433, 435 (Ind.
2002) (providing that upon review, appellate courts do not reweigh the evidence
or assess the credibility of the witnesses).
[14] The judgment of the trial court is affirmed.
Bailey, J., and Mathias, J., concur.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 49A04-1712-CR-2914 | July 30, 2018 Page 8 of 8