Gerald Donaldson v. State of Indiana (mem. dec.) ( 2017 )

MEMORANDUM DECISION
FILED
Pursuant to Ind. Appellate Rule 65(D), Mar 10 2017, 9:43 am
this Memorandum Decision shall not be
CLERK
regarded as precedent or cited before any Indiana Supreme Court
Court of Appeals
court except for the purpose of establishing and Tax Court
the defense of res judicata, collateral
estoppel, or the law of the case.
ATTORNEY FOR APPELLANT ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE
Ellen M. O’Connor Curtis T. Hill, Jr.
Marion County Public Defender Agency Attorney General of Indiana
Indianapolis, Indiana
Tyler G. Banks,
Deputy Attorney General
Indianapolis, Indiana
IN THE
COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA
Gerald Donaldson, March 10, 2017
Appellant-Defendant, Court of Appeals Case No.
49A05-1608-CR-1834
v. Appeal from the Marion Superior
Court
State of Indiana, The Honorable Shatrese M.
Appellee-Plaintiff. Flowers, Judge
The Honorable James Snyder,
Commissioner
Trial Court Cause No.
49G20-1604-F4-12741
Pyle, Judge.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 49A05-1608-CR-1834 | March 10, 2017 Page 1 of 7
Statement of the Case
[1] Gerald Donaldson (“Donaldson”) appeals his conviction for Level 4 felony
unlawful possession of a firearm by a serious violent felon (“SVF”).1 He argues
that there was not sufficient evidence to prove that he possessed the firearm that
the police found near his car. Because we conclude that there was sufficient
evidence that he possessed the firearm, we affirm. However, we also remand
with instructions for the trial court to correct an error in Donaldson’s abstract of
judgment.
[2] We affirm and remand.
Issue
Whether there was sufficient evidence to prove that Donaldson
possessed a firearm.
Facts
[3] Around 2 a.m. on March 31, 2016, Indianapolis Metropolitan Police
Department Officer Marc Klonne (“Officer Klonne”) was patrolling 38th Street
in Indianapolis when he spotted a red vehicle with inoperable tail lights and a
loud muffler. He determined that the vehicle’s license plate was expired and,
after following the vehicle for a while, turned on his lights and siren to conduct
a traffic stop. However, the vehicle did not stop and led Officer Klonne on a
pursuit through residential areas near 38th Street. Officer Klonne alerted
1
IND. CODE § 35-47-4-5.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 49A05-1608-CR-1834 | March 10, 2017 Page 2 of 7
dispatch of the pursuit and then followed the vehicle until it finally stopped in a
grassy area off of Birchwood Avenue.
[4] When Officer Klonne came to a stop a car length behind the red vehicle, he
positioned his police car so that its spotlight shone into the red vehicle’s
interior. At that point, the driver of the vehicle, who was later identified as
Donaldson, opened his door and ran in front of his car to flee from Officer
Klonne. Officer Klonne saw a black item with a “distinct shine to it” and a
“distinct rectangular or squared off shape” protruding from Donaldson’s hand.
(Tr. 17). He believed that the item was a firearm and conveyed this information
to dispatch.
[5] In the meantime, Officer Klonne pursued Donaldson on foot. A second police
vehicle with two officers arrived as backup and caught up to Donaldson. The
officers then exited their car to pursue Donaldson on foot. One of the officers,
who had been told that Donaldson might have a gun, noted that he did not see
Donaldson holding a gun at that point in the chase. Instead, he observed
Donaldson “running holding his pants” and then “switch[] hands holding his
pants.” (Tr. 60).
[6] Eventually, the officers caught up to Donaldson behind a house and took him
into custody. They searched his pockets and found a marijuana blunt, heroin,
and cocaine residue. They also found a toy gun on the sidewalk in front of the
house where they had apprehended Donaldson. Another officer who was
investigating the scene of the stopped cars discovered a real firearm on the grass
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 49A05-1608-CR-1834 | March 10, 2017 Page 3 of 7
“about five feet from the front end of [Donaldson’s] car.” (Tr. 39). The officers
did a firearms check and determined that Donaldson did not have a handgun
license.
[7] When the officers booked Donaldson into the arrestee processing center,
Donaldson used the center’s telephones to make two phone calls—one to the
mother of his children and one to his sister. (Tr. 80). In his conversation with
the mother of his children, Donaldson said “[t]hey find the heat and everything
and stuff” and “I said I had to throw the heat and everything.” (State’s Ex.
12a). He also said “[t]hey tryin’ to say the heat was mine. The heat they found
they tryin’ to say it was mine.” (State’s Ex. 12a). During his second phone call
with his sister, his sister asked, “But you had the gun too?” and he responded,
“I had the gun, too.” (State’s Ex. 12a). Later in the conversation, though, he
denied that he had possessed a gun that night.
[8] On April 5, 2016, the State charged Donaldson with Count 1, Level 4 felony
unlawful possession of a firearm by a serious violent felon; Count 2, Level 5
felony possession of cocaine; Count 3, Level 5 felony possession of a narcotic
drug; Count 4, Level 6 felony resisting law enforcement; Count 5, Class A
misdemeanor resisting law enforcement; and Count 6, Class B misdemeanor
possession of marijuana. The State also alleged that Donaldson was an
habitual offender because he had two prior unrelated felony convictions.
[9] On June 13, 2016, the trial court held a jury trial. At trial, Officer Klonne and
the other officers who had been involved in Donaldson’s pursuit testified to the
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 49A05-1608-CR-1834 | March 10, 2017 Page 4 of 7
above facts. Officer Klonne also testified that “heater” and “hot box” were
“street names” for firearms. (Tr. 29, 30). Donaldson testified that he never had
a toy gun on him or a “weapon period.” (Tr. 79). He explained that when he
said he “threw heat,” he meant that he “threw the crack pipe that [he] had on
[himself].” (Tr. 79). At the conclusion of the trial, the jury found Donaldson
guilty as charged. The trial court then held a bench trial on the State’s SVF and
habitual offender allegations and determined that he was a SVF and habitual
offender. The trial court sentenced him to eight (8) years on Count 1; two (2)
years each on Counts 2, 3, and 4; and 180 days on Count 6, with all of the
sentences to be served concurrently.2 The court also enhanced Donaldson’s
sentence by nine (9) years, with six (6) years executed on community
corrections and three (3) years suspended.3 Donaldson now appeals.
Decision
[10] On appeal, Donaldson argues that there was insufficient evidence to prove that
he possessed the firearm that the officers found in front of his car. Our standard
of review for a sufficiency of the evidence claim is well-settled. We consider
only the probative evidence and reasonable inferences supporting the verdict.
2
The trial court vacated Donaldson’s conviction for Count 5 to avoid violating double jeopardy prohibitions.
3
The trial court clarified in its sentencing order that the nine (9) year habitual offender enhancement
enhanced Donaldson’s sentence for Count I. However, its abstract of judgment provided that the “total
sentence listed above”—which included all of the Counts—was enhanced by the nine (9) years. Our habitual
offender statute specifies that a “[t]he court shall attach the habitual offender enhancement to the felony
conviction with the highest sentence imposed and specify which felony count is being enhanced.” I.C. § 35-
50-2-8(j). Accordingly, we remand with instructions for the trial court to correct the abstract of judgment to
clarify that Donaldson’s habitual offender enhancement is attached to Count 1.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 49A05-1608-CR-1834 | March 10, 2017 Page 5 of 7
Champion v. State, 65 N.E.3d 607, 610 (Ind. Ct. App. 2016). We do not reweigh
the evidence or judge the credibility of witnesses. Id. We will affirm the
conviction unless no reasonable fact finder could find the elements of the crime
proven beyond a reasonable doubt. Id. The evidence is sufficient if an inference
may be reasonably drawn from it to support the verdict. Id.
[11] In order to convict Donaldson for unlawful possession of a firearm by an SVF,
the State had to prove that he was an SVF and: “knowingly or intentionally
possesse[d] a firearm.” I.C. § 35-47-4-5. A person possesses an item when that
person has “direct physical control over the item.” Henderson v. State, 715
N.E.2d 833, 835 (Ind. 1999).4
[12] Here, Donaldson’s arguments are essentially requests that we reweigh the
evidence, which we will not do. See Champion, 65 N.E.3d at 610. Without
reweighing the evidence, we conclude that there was sufficient evidence that
Donaldson possessed the firearm. Specifically, Officer Klonne saw a black item
with a “distinct shine to it” and a “distinct rectangular or squared off shape” in
Donaldson’s hand and believed that item was a gun. (Tr. 17).
Correspondingly, officers found a firearm five feet in front of Donaldson’s car
along the path that he took to flee the police. Donaldson also admitted to
4
Possession of contraband may be either actual or constructive. Henderson v. State, 715 N.E.2d 833, 835 (Ind.
1999. Actual possession occurs when a person has direct physical control over an item. Id. Constructive
possession occurs when a person has the “‘intent and capability to maintain dominion and control over the
item.’” Id. (quoting Walker v. State, 631 N.E.2d 1, 2 (Ind. Ct. App. 1994). Donaldson argues that he did not
have constructive possession of the firearm, but we need not address that argument as we conclude that he
had actual possession of the firearm.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 49A05-1608-CR-1834 | March 10, 2017 Page 6 of 7
possessing a firearm when he talked to the mother of his children and his sister
from jail. He told the mother of his children that the police had found the
“heat” and that he had thrown “the heat.” (State’s Ex. 12a). Officer Klonne
testified that “heater” is a street name for a firearm. (Tr. 29). Donaldson also
told his sister that he had a gun. Based on this evidence, we conclude that there
was sufficient evidence to prove that Donaldson possessed the firearm.
Accordingly, we affirm the trial court.
[13] Affirmed and remanded.
Baker, J., and Mathias, J., concur.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 49A05-1608-CR-1834 | March 10, 2017 Page 7 of 7