Elmer Bryant v. State of Indiana (mem. dec.) ( 2015 )

MEMORANDUM DECISION
Pursuant to Ind. Appellate Rule 65(D), this Jul 06 2015, 6:51 am
Memorandum Decision shall not be regarded as
precedent or cited before any court except for the
purpose of establishing the defense of res judicata,
collateral estoppel, or the law of the case.
ATTORNEY FOR APPELLANT ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE
Marielena Duerring Gregory F. Zoeller
South Bend, Indiana Attorney General of Indiana
Tyler G. Banks
Deputy Attorney General
Indianapolis, Indiana
IN THE
COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA
Elmer Bryant, July 6, 2015
Appellant-Defendant, Court of Appeals Case No.
71A03-1411-CR-415
v. Appeal from the St. Joseph Superior
Court
State of Indiana, The Honorable Elizabeth C. Hurley,
Judge
Appellee-Plaintiff. Case No. 71D08-1401-FD-6
Brown, Judge.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 71A03-1411-CR-415 | July 6, 2015 Page 1 of 10
[1] Elmer Bryant appeals his convictions for auto theft and theft as class D felonies.
Bryant raises one issue, which we revise and restate as whether the evidence is
sufficient to sustain his convictions. We affirm Bryant’s convictions but
remand with instructions that the trial court attach his habitual offender
enhancement to the sentence imposed on his conviction for auto theft as a class
D felony.
Facts and Procedural History
[2] On December 9, 2013, Bryant went to a Goodwill Industries location in St.
Joseph County, entered the store, wandered all over, asked an employee for
money for diapers, and then exited the store. Bryant walked to the parking lot
of the Goodwill, walked to the driver’s side of the vehicle of Terri Burks, an
employee who worked in the administrative offices of Goodwill, and remained
in the area around Burks’s vehicle for a period of time.1 Burks later exited the
store, entered the driver’s side of her vehicle, and discovered that the interior of
the vehicle was in disarray and that money was missing. Burks also noticed
that the power locks of the vehicle were not functioning properly. Two Disney
1
A video recording of security camera footage admitted into evidence shows Bryant walked between two
vehicles in the Goodwill parking lot, but due to Bryant’s location and the location of the camera, it is not
possible to observe his actions while between the vehicles.
The State argues that the time stamp on the Goodwill security video shows that Bryant was near the driver’s
side of Burks’s vehicle for approximately three minutes, that a notation on the video shows the recording
system only captures four frames per second, and thus that, while the time stamp for the exhibit DVD shows
only a forty-second span between when Bryant approached Burks’s vehicle and when he returned to his
vehicle, the time stamp appearing on the video itself demonstrates that Bryant was near the driver’s side of
Burks’s vehicle for approximately three minutes. The time stamp on the video screen when Bryant walked
between the two vehicles is approximately 14:26:21, the time stamp when he walked out from between the
vehicles is about 14:27:06.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 71A03-1411-CR-415 | July 6, 2015 Page 2 of 10
World access cards, a postcard addressed to Burks’s mother, a coupon
addressed to Burks, and a photograph of Burks’s son were missing from Burks’s
vehicle. Burks went back inside the Goodwill store and had security videos
pulled that covered the parking lot so that she could see who entered her car.
The video recordings showed Bryant enter the Goodwill store and wander all
over, exit the store and walk to the driver’s side of Burks’s vehicle, and then
walk to another vehicle and drive away.
[3] At around 7:00 a.m. on December 20, 2013, Aubrie Washington discovered
that her Toyota Camry was not parked in her driveway. Washington had not
lost her keys and had not given anyone permission to take her vehicle, and she
called the police.
[4] On January 2, 2014, South Bend Police Officer Theodore Robert received a
report that there were possible stolen vehicles located at an address on South
Bendix Drive, and he traveled to that location and observed vehicles, including
Washington’s Toyota Camry, in the backyard of the residence. Officer Robert
and other officers spoke with Bryant’s sister, who indicated that she and Bryant
lived at the residence. She led the officers to the basement area where Bryant
was sleeping, and the officers woke Bryant up and discovered a number of
items in the basement, including numerous keys to vehicles, credit cards, and
the Disney World access cards, photograph, and mail addressed to Burks which
were missing from Burks’s vehicle. Bryant indicated to Officer Robert that the
basement was his primary living area.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 71A03-1411-CR-415 | July 6, 2015 Page 3 of 10
[5] Detective James Robert Cauffman interviewed Bryant at the police station, and
Bryant stated that his address was the one on Bendix Drive where he was
discovered sleeping; that his sister’s boyfriend Anthony moved in, started
bringing stuff there, and was arrested; that he had told Anthony that he needed
to move the cars and Anthony said he would; that he had driven the cars; and,
when asked if Anthony had told him the cars were stolen, Bryant stated no but
that he figured they were stolen. Bryant’s fingerprint was discovered on the
inside glass of the driver’s side rear door of the Camry.
[6] The State, in an amended charging information, charged Bryant with auto theft
as a class D felony and three counts of theft as class D felonies, and the State
also alleged that he was an habitual offender. At Bryant’s trial, the State
presented the testimony of, among others, Burks, Omeria Sibanda, a
caseworker at Goodwill, Washington, Officer Robert, and Detective Cauffman,
a video and audio recording of Detective Cauffman’s interview of Bryant, video
recordings of security camera footage obtained from the Goodwill store, and a
number of photographs of the residence and basement area where Bryant was
found sleeping. Sibanda testified that she recognized Bryant both in the
courtroom and as a client, that Burks had asked her to review the security video
from December 9, 2013 and she did so, that she recognized Bryant in the video,
and that Bryant had asked for money for diapers while in the store that day.
Detective Cauffman testified that Anthony Henderson was arrested earlier on
January 2, 2014 for driving a stolen vehicle and that he had provided the South
Bendix Drive address. The jury found Bryant guilty of auto theft and one count
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 71A03-1411-CR-415 | July 6, 2015 Page 4 of 10
of theft and not guilty on two of the theft charges. Bryant stipulated to the
habitual offender enhancement. The court sentenced him to two years for his
auto theft conviction, two years for his theft conviction, and two and one-half
years for being an habitual offender, and ordered that he serve the sentences
consecutively.
Discussion
[7] The issue is whether the evidence is sufficient to sustain Bryant’s convictions.
When reviewing claims of insufficiency of the evidence, we do not reweigh the
evidence or judge the credibility of witnesses. Jordan v. State, 656 N.E.2d 816,
817 (Ind. 1995), reh’g denied. Rather, we look to the evidence and the
reasonable inferences therefrom that support the verdict. Id. We will affirm the
conviction if there exists evidence of probative value from which a reasonable
trier of fact could find the defendant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. Id.[8] At the time of the offenses, Ind. Code § 35-43-4-2 provided in part that “[a]
person who knowingly or intentionally exerts unauthorized control over
property of another person, with intent to deprive the other person of any part
of its value or use, commits theft, a Class D felony,” and Ind. Code § 35-43-4-
2.5 provided in part that “[a] person who knowingly or intentionally exerts
unauthorized control over the motor vehicle of another person, with intent to
deprive the owner of . . . the vehicle’s value or use . . . commits auto theft, a
Class D felony.”
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 71A03-1411-CR-415 | July 6, 2015 Page 5 of 10
[9] Bryant argues that the State failed to demonstrate anything other than his mere
presence at the scene, that there were two other adults associated with the
Bendix Street address, Bryant’s sister and Henderson, and that Henderson had
been identified by Bryant as the individual responsible for the stolen vehicles
and was also apprehended by police driving a stolen vehicle. Bryant also argues
that, while the evidence placed him at the scene of Burks’s vehicle, it did not
demonstrate that he actually entered her vehicle.
[10] The State argues that the evidence exhibited more than Bryant’s mere
possession of the stolen Camry, that the vehicle was parked in the backyard of a
residence he claimed as his domicile, he admitted to driving the vehicles on the
property and figured they were stolen, he had told Henderson to take the
vehicles off the property, and his fingerprint was found on an interior window
surface of the Camry. The State also argues that Burks’s Disney cards were
found in the basement where Bryant slept, that a Goodwill employee identified
him, that a video recording shows him near Burks’s vehicle, and that, while
Bryant’s exact movements are unclear because the camera view is obstructed,
after he was hovering around the vehicle, Burks was missing cash and other
items from her vehicle and the locks to her vehicle were no longer functioning
properly.
[11] Elements of offenses and identity may be established entirely by circumstantial
evidence and the logical inferences drawn therefrom. Bustamante v. State, 557
N.E.2d 1313, 1317 (Ind. 1990). Identification testimony need not necessarily
be unequivocal to sustain a conviction. Heeter v. State, 661 N.E.2d 612, 616
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 71A03-1411-CR-415 | July 6, 2015 Page 6 of 10
(Ind. Ct. App. 1996). As with other sufficiency matters, we will not weigh the
evidence or resolve questions of credibility when determining whether the
identification evidence is sufficient to sustain a conviction. Id. Rather, we
examine the evidence and the reasonable inferences therefrom that support the
verdict. Id.[12] “While the mere unexplained possession of recently stolen property standing
alone does not automatically support a conviction for theft, such possession is
to be considered along with the other evidence in a case, such as how recent or
distant in time was the possession from the moment the item was stolen, and
what are the circumstances of the possession (say, possessing right next door as
opposed to many miles away).” Holloway v. State, 983 N.E.2d 1175, 1179 (Ind.
Ct. App. 2013) (internal quotation marks omitted) (citing Donovan v. State, 937
N.E.2d 1223, 1226 (Ind. Ct. App. 2010) (citing Fortson v. State, 919 N.E.2d
1136, 1143 (Ind. 2010)), trans. denied). The fact of possession and all the
surrounding evidence about the possession must be assessed to determine
whether any rational trier of fact could find the defendant guilty beyond a
reasonable doubt. Id.; see also Girdler v. State, 932 N.E.2d 769, 773 (Ind. Ct.
App. 2010) (noting that possession of recently stolen property is to be
considered along with the other evidence in a case and the circumstances of the
possession). The trier of fact must assess all of the evidence instead of focusing
upon one piece of evidence, such as possession of recently stolen property. Id.(citing Donovan, 937 N.E.2d at 1226).
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 71A03-1411-CR-415 | July 6, 2015 Page 7 of 10
[13] Further, it is well settled that a defendant may be charged with and convicted of
auto theft, even if the person was not the original thief, so long as the elements
of auto theft are met—the knowing or intentional exercise of control over
another’s vehicle, with intent to deprive the owner of the vehicle’s value or use.
Girdler, 932 N.E.2d at 771; see also Donovan, 937 N.E.2d at 1226 (concluding the
State was not required to show that the defendant had exclusive possession of
the vehicle from the time of the theft to the time of his arrest but rather the trier
of fact should look at all of the evidence to determine if the defendant is guilty
of the offense beyond a reasonable doubt).
[14] The jury heard testimony from Burks, Washington, Officer Robert, and
Detective Cauffman, and a video and audio recording of Detective Cauffman’s
interview of Bryant and video recordings of security camera footage from the
Goodwill store and parking lot were displayed to the jury. The jury was able to
assess the testimony and evidence in light of the statements of Bryant during his
interview with Detective Cauffman.
[15] With respect to Bryant’s auto theft conviction, the evidence most favorable to
the conviction reveals that Washington’s Toyota Camry was discovered in the
backyard of the residence where Bryant lived. Bryant stated during his
interview with Detective Cauffman that he figured the cars on the property
were stolen and that he had told his sister’s boyfriend he needed to move the
cars. Bryant also stated that he had driven the cars, and his fingerprint was
found on the inside glass of the driver’s side rear door of the Camry. The jury
as fact-finder reasonably could have concluded that Bryant exerted
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 71A03-1411-CR-415 | July 6, 2015 Page 8 of 10
unauthorized control over the Camry with intent to deprive its owner of the
vehicle’s value or use.
[16] As to his theft conviction, Bryant does not dispute that two Disney World
access cards belonging to Burks were discovered in the basement where he was
sleeping. He lived at the residence with his sister, and he indicated to Officer
Robert that the basement was his primary living area. The State presented
security video recordings of the Goodwill parking lot which showed Bryant
walk between the driver’s side of Burks’s vehicle and another vehicle, remain
there for a period of time, and then walk to another vehicle and drive away.
Later in the day, when Burks exited the store and went to her vehicle, she
discovered the power locks were not functioning properly and that the interior
of the vehicle was in disarray. Burks testified that the two Disney World access
cards found in the basement where Bryant was sleeping were taken from her
vehicle. A rational factfinder could have found that Bryant knowingly exerted
unauthorized control over the property of Burks, with intent to deprive her of its
value or use.
[17] Based upon the record, we conclude that the State presented evidence of a
probative nature from which a jury could find beyond a reasonable doubt that
Bryant committed the crimes of auto theft and theft as charged.
[18] While we affirm Bryant’s convictions, we sua sponte observe that the trial court
erroneously entered a separate two-year sentence for the habitual offender
finding to be served consecutive to the sentences for auto theft and theft. An
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 71A03-1411-CR-415 | July 6, 2015 Page 9 of 10
habitual offender finding does not constitute a separate crime, nor does it result
in a separate sentence. See Ind. Code § 35-50-2-8 (2009) (subsequently amended
by Pub. L. No. 158-2013, § 661 (eff. July 1, 2014); Pub. L. No. 168-2014, § 118
(eff. July 1, 2014)). Rather, an habitual offender finding results in a sentence
enhancement imposed upon the conviction of a subsequent felony. Hendrix v.
State, 759 N.E.2d 1045, 1048 (Ind. 2001). The court’s sentencing order stated
that Bryant entered a guilty plea as to the habitual offender count, entered a
sentence of two and one-half years on the habitual offender count, and ordered
the sentence to be served consecutive to Bryant’s other sentences. The abstract
of judgment lists a separate sentence for the habitual offender count and does
not attach the habitual offender enhancement to Bryant’s sentence for either
auto theft or theft. We remand with instructions that the trial court vacate the
separate sentence on the habitual offender enhancement and attach the
enhancement to Bryant’s sentence for auto theft as a class D felony.
Conclusion
[19] For the foregoing reasons, we affirm Bryant’s convictions for theft and auto
theft as class D felonies and remand for the trial court to attach the habitual
offender enhancement to Bryant’s sentence for auto theft as a class D felony.
[20] Affirmed and remanded.
Crone, J., and Pyle, J., concur.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 71A03-1411-CR-415 | July 6, 2015 Page 10 of 10