Devin Combs 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 Jul 10 2018, 8:06 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
Richard J. Thonert Curtis T. Hill, Jr.
Fort Wayne, Indiana Attorney General of Indiana
Matthew B. MacKenzie
Deputy Attorney General
Indianapolis, Indiana
IN THE
COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA
Devin Combs, July 10, 2018
Appellant-Defendant, Court of Appeals Case No.
17A-CR-3059
v. Appeal from the Noble Circuit
Court
State of Indiana, The Honorable Michael J. Kramer,
Appellee-Plaintiff. Judge
Trial Court Cause No.
57C01-1603-F4-14
Bradford, Judge.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 17A-CR-3059 | July 10, 2018 Page 1 of 6
Case Summary
[1] Devin Combs was convicted of Level 4 felony dealing in methamphetamine
after he was caught fleeing a residence where law enforcement found evidence
of the manufacture of the drug. On appeal, Combs challenges the sufficiency of
the evidence to sustain his conviction. We affirm.
Facts and Procedural History
[2] On March 21, 2016, law enforcement officers in Noble County went to a
residence and attempted to serve two warrants on Combs. Lora Gage owned
the residence and was known to associate with Combs. Prior to serving the
warrants, the officers formed a perimeter around the residence. When the
officers were in place, Officer James Sheffield knocked on the front door of the
residence. D.C., the seventeen-year-old son of Gage, answered the door and
invited Officer Sheffield inside. Once inside, Officer Sheffield could smell
chemicals that he knew to be associated with the production of
methamphetamine. Officer Sheffield asked Gage whether Combs was present
in the residence and Gage indicated that he was not. Officer Sheffield observed
that D.C. made “a frantic [gesture] with his head” toward a crawl space under
the main floor of the house and had “a frightened look” when he inquired about
Combs. Tr. Vol. II, p. 29.
[3] The smell emanating from the residence led Officer Sheffield to fear for the
safety of the occupants so he “had everybody exit the … residence.” Tr. Vol. II,
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 17A-CR-3059 | July 10, 2018 Page 2 of 6
p. 29. Officer Sheffield walked over to the “trap door to the crawl space” and
opened the trap door. Tr. Vol. II, p. 30. After opening the trap door, “the odor
became very very strong.” Tr. Vol. II, p. 30. Officer Sheffield ordered “any
person that was down there to come out” and a male juvenile and a female
juvenile exited the crawl space. Tr. Vol. II, p. 30. As the juveniles were exiting
the crawl space, Officer Sheffield was notified by radio that Combs “had exited
the crawl space from a window … and was apprehended … trying to flee the
property from the rear.” Tr. Vol. II, p. 31.
[4] A subsequent search revealed numerous items associated with manufacturing
methamphetamine hidden in the crawl space. These items included: (1) a
bottle containing chemicals used to produce methamphetamine via the “one
pot” method, (2) coffee filters, (3) drain cleaner, (4) a glass smoking pipe, (5)
burned lithium battery strips and AA batteries, (6) a baggie containing a white
powdered substance that tested positive for methamphetamine, (7) cold packs,
and (8) a backpack marked with an abbreviated version of Combs’s name. Tr.
Vol. II, p. 73. The backpack contained various tools and supplies used to
manufacture methamphetamine.
[5] On March 22, 2016, the State charged Combs with Level 4 felony dealing in
methamphetamine. A bench trial was conducted on November 7, 2017, after
which Combs was found guilty as charged. The trial court subsequently
sentenced Combs to a ten-year term with eight years executed and two years
suspended to probation.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 17A-CR-3059 | July 10, 2018 Page 3 of 6
Discussion and Decision
[6] Combs contends that the evidence is insufficient to sustain his conviction for
Level 4 felony dealing in methamphetamine.
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.
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).
[7] At the time Combs committed the charged conduct, Indiana Code section 35-
48-4-1.1 provided as follows:
(a) A person who:
(1) knowingly or intentionally:
(A) manufactures;
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 17A-CR-3059 | July 10, 2018 Page 4 of 6
(B) finances the manufacture of;
(C) delivers; or
(D) finances the delivery of;
methamphetamine, pure or adulterated; or
(2) possesses, with intent to:
(A) manufacture;
(B) finance the manufacture of;
(C) deliver; or
(D) finance the delivery of;
methamphetamine, pure or adulterated;
commits dealing in methamphetamine, a Level 5 felony, except
as provided in subsections (b) through (e).
The offense was a Level 4 felony if “(1) the amount of the drug involved is at
least one (1) gram but less than five (5) grams; or (2) the amount of the drug
involved is less than one (1) gram and an enhancing circumstance applies.”
Ind. Code § 35-48-4-1.1(c).
[8] The evidence indicates that Gage initially lied to police and indicated that
Combs was not present in the residence. Combs, however, was apprehended
by police as he attempted to flee the crawl space through a window. The crawl
space contained numerous items used in the “one pot” method for
manufacturing methamphetamine and a backpack marked with an abbreviated
version of Combs’s first name. The backpack also contained numerous items
used during the manufacturing process. We conclude that the above-described
evidence is sufficient to sustain Combs’s conviction for Level 4 felony dealing
in methamphetamine. See Montgomery v. State, 22 N.E.3d 768, 781–82 (Ind. Ct.
App. 2014) (providing that evidence that the defendant was in possession of
numerous items used in the manufacture of methamphetamine and attempted
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 17A-CR-3059 | July 10, 2018 Page 5 of 6
to flee when approached by law enforcement was sufficient to sustain the
defendant’s conviction for manufacturing methamphetamine). Combs’s claim
to the contrary effectively amounts to an invitation to reweigh the 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).
[9] The judgment of the trial court is affirmed.
Baker, J., Kirsch, J., concur.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 17A-CR-3059 | July 10, 2018 Page 6 of 6