Billy T. Reames v. State of Indiana (mem. dec.) ( 2017 )

MEMORANDUM DECISION
Pursuant to Ind. Appellate Rule 65(D), FILED
this Memorandum Decision shall not be Jan 11 2017, 6:20 am
regarded as precedent or cited before any CLERK
court except for the purpose of establishing Indiana Supreme Court
Court of Appeals
and Tax Court
the defense of res judicata, collateral
estoppel, or the law of the case.
ATTORNEY FOR APPELLANT ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE
Donald R. Shuler Curtis T. Hill
Barkes Kolbus Rife & Shuler, LLP Attorney General
Goshen, Indiana
Caryn N. Szyper
Deputy Attorney General
Indianapolis, Indiana
IN THE
COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA
Billy T. Reames, January 11, 2017
Appellant-Defendant, Court of Appeals Case No.
20A03-1606-CR-1332
v. Appeal from the Elkhart Circuit
Court
State of Indiana, The Honorable Terry C.
Appellee-Plaintiff. Shewmaker, Judge
Trial Court Cause No.
20C01-1505-F3-18
Barnes, Judge.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 20A03-1606-CR-1332 | January 11, 2017 Page 1 of 10
Case Summary
[1] Billy Reames appeals his conviction and sentence for Level 3 felony robbery
while armed with a deadly weapon and the finding that he is an habitual
offender. We affirm.
Issues
[2] The issues before us are:
I. whether there is sufficient evidence to sustain Reames’s
conviction for Level 3 felony robbery; and
II. whether his twenty-two year sentence is inappropriate.
Facts
[3] On February 4, 2015, Dennis Smith went to a friend’s residence to have some
tattoo work done. Several other persons also were present at the residence,
including Reames and seventy-four-year-old Irma Geaugh. Smith was not
previously acquainted with Reames. After a while, Geaugh asked Smith to
drive her to the grocery store, and he agreed to do so. Reames asked Smith to
buy some cigarettes for him as well, but Smith instead invited Reames to come
along with them.
[4] Smith’s vehicle was a 2000 Jeep Cherokee that he had purchased in December
2014. After purchasing the Jeep, Smith had made a number of improvements
to it, including installing a tachometer, aluminum rims, and snow tires, and
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 20A03-1606-CR-1332 | January 11, 2017 Page 2 of 10
enhancing the stereo system. The total cost of the improvements was
approximately $2,500.
[5] Smith first drove Geaugh to the nursing home where her husband resided. She
briefly visited with her husband while Smith and Reames waited in the Jeep.
Smith then drove Geaugh to the grocery store. Smith and Reames again stayed
outside in the Jeep while Geaugh went inside and shopped. Reames was sitting
in the front passenger seat next to Smith. Smith was proud of his stereo system
and showed it off to Reames by turning it up loud.
[6] After a period of time, Reames suddenly turned to Smith and said, “Get the hell
out of the car.” Tr. p. 58. Smith was dumbfounded at first. Reames repeated
his demand that Smith get out of the car, and Smith saw that Reames was
pointing a knife, which had a three-and-a-half to four-inch blade, at him.
Reames then told Smith to get out “or I’m going to gut you like a pig.” Id.
Smith was paralyzed with fear while Reames repeatedly demanded that he get
out of the car. Finally, Reames pulled the keys out of the ignition, and Smith
got out. Reames drove away quickly. Smith ran inside the grocery store, found
Geaugh in the checkout line, and told her that Reames had drawn a knife on
him and taken his Jeep. Geaugh noticed that Smith was “all upset and
distraught.” Id. at 103.
[7] Police found Smith’s Jeep the next day abandoned in a snow bank and took it
to an impound lot. The Jeep was inoperable because the engine was “blown
up,” and Smith had to pay to have it towed to his home. Id. at 66. One of the
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 20A03-1606-CR-1332 | January 11, 2017 Page 3 of 10
fenders was damaged, and the back doors and driver’s side door would not
open. Additionally, the interior of the vehicle was heavily damaged, the
tachometer was damaged, the stereo equipment had been removed, and some
toys belonging to Smith’s son that were in the vehicle were gone.
[8] The State charged Reames with Level 3 felony robbery while armed with a
deadly weapon. Additionally, the State alleged that Reames was an habitual
offender. Reames elected to be tried by the bench and also waived any trial
with respect to whether he was an habitual offender. After trial, the trial court
issued a written order finding Reames guilty of Level 3 felony robbery. The
order stated in part, “the Court believes that the weight of the evidence tips in
favor of the testimony of Mr. Smith and the Court believes the testimony of Mr.
Dennis Smith.” App. p. 47. The trial court entered judgment of conviction
accordingly and found that Reames was an habitual offender. It imposed a
sentence of twelve years for the conviction, with one year suspended, and
enhanced that sentence by ten years for the habitual offender finding. Reames
now appeals.
Analysis
I. Sufficiency of the Evidence
[9] Reames first contends there is insufficient evidence to support his conviction for
Level 3 felony robbery. When addressing a claim of insufficient evidence, we
must consider only the probative evidence and reasonable inferences supporting
the conviction. Sallee v. State, 51 N.E.3d 130, 133 (Ind. 2016). It is the fact-
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 20A03-1606-CR-1332 | January 11, 2017 Page 4 of 10
finder’s role, not ours, to assess witness credibility and weigh evidence to
determine whether it is sufficient to support a conviction. Id. “It is not
necessary that the evidence ‘overcome every reasonable hypothesis of
innocence.’” Id. (quoting Moore v. State, 652 N.E.2d 53, 55 (Ind. 1995)).
“‘[E]vidence is sufficient if an inference may reasonably be drawn from it to
support the verdict.’” Id. (quoting Drane v. State, 867 N.E.2d 144, 147 (Ind.
2007)). However, “[e]vidence sufficient only to establish a mere suspicion of
guilt is not sufficient to support a conviction.” Id. at 135.
[10] In order to convict Reames of Level 3 felony robbery as charged, the State was
required to prove that he knowingly or intentionally took property from Smith
by either using or threatening the use of force on any person or by putting any
person in fear, and that Reames was armed with a deadly weapon while doing
so. See Ind. Code § 35-42-5-1. Reames does not deny that he took Smith’s
Jeep, but contends there is insufficient evidence that he threatened Smith or
placed Smith in fear, or that he was armed with a deadly weapon.1
[11] A conviction may be based upon the uncorroborated testimony of a single
witness. Sallee, 51 N.E.3d at 134-35. Here, Smith testified quite clearly that
Reames threatened to “gut” him with the knife Reames displayed and as to his
fear. Tr. p. 58. Smith’s testimony was partially corroborated by Geaugh’s
testimony, who described Smith being “upset and distraught” and telling her
1
Knives clearly qualify as a “deadly weapon,” even pocket knives. Hollowell v. State, 707 N.E.2d 1014, 1020-
21 (Ind. Ct. App. 1999).
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 20A03-1606-CR-1332 | January 11, 2017 Page 5 of 10
that Reames had just taken his Jeep after drawing a knife on him. Id. at 103.
Reames contends this testimony was insufficient because no one else testified as
to having seen Reames with a knife on that or any other day and because Smith
denied having threatened Reames with a knife. These clearly are invitations to
reweigh the evidence and judge witness credibility, which we cannot do.2
[12] Reames also suggests that the trial court applied a preponderance of the
evidence burden of proof upon the State rather than the required proof beyond
a reasonable doubt. He directs us to the trial court’s written statement that “the
Court believes that the weight of the evidence tips in favor of the testimony of
Mr. Smith . . . .” App. p. 47. We are not convinced that this statement
indicates the trial court applied the incorrect burden of proof. Regardless, a
trial court is not required to make findings of fact or conclusions of law in a
criminal case, and any remarks or partial explanations it gives as to its mental
processes in finding a defendant guilty are not binding. Dozier v. State, 709
N.E.2d 27, 30 (Ind. Ct. App. 1999). We focus not upon remarks the trial court
makes following a bench trial but rather solely upon whether the evidence
presented to the trial court as fact-finder was sufficient to sustain the conviction.
Id. The evidence here clearly was sufficient.
2
Reames does not develop any argument that Smith’s testimony should be disregarded as incredibly dubious.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 20A03-1606-CR-1332 | January 11, 2017 Page 6 of 10
II. Sentence
[13] Reames also argues that his twenty-two-year sentence is inappropriate under
Indiana Appellate Rule 7(B) in light of his character and the nature of the
offense. Although Rule 7(B) does not require us to be “extremely” deferential
to a trial court’s sentencing decision, we still must give due consideration to that
decision. Rutherford v. State, 866 N.E.2d 867, 873 (Ind. Ct. App. 2007). We
also understand and recognize the unique perspective a trial court brings to its
sentencing decisions. Id. “Additionally, a defendant bears the burden of
persuading the appellate court that his or her sentence is inappropriate.” Id.
[14] The principal role of Rule 7(B) review “should be to attempt to leaven the
outliers, and identify some guiding principles for trial courts and those charged
with improvement of the sentencing statutes, but not to achieve a perceived
‘correct’ result in each case.” Cardwell v. State, 895 N.E.2d 1219, 1225 (Ind.
2008). We “should focus on the forest—the aggregate sentence—rather than
the trees—consecutive or concurrent, number of counts, or length of the
sentence on any individual count.” Id. Whether a sentence is inappropriate
ultimately turns on the culpability of the defendant, the severity of the crime,
the damage done to others, and myriad other factors that come to light in a
given case. Id. at 1224. When reviewing the appropriateness of a sentence
under Rule 7(B), we may consider all aspects of the penal consequences
imposed by the trial court in sentencing the defendant, including whether a
portion of the sentence was suspended. Davidson v. State, 926 N.E.2d 1023,
1025 (Ind. 2010).
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 20A03-1606-CR-1332 | January 11, 2017 Page 7 of 10
[15] The sentencing range for a Level 3 felony is between three and sixteen years.
I.C. § 35-50-2-5(b). An habitual offender enhancement for a Level 3 felony may
range between six and twenty years. I.C. § 35-50-2-8(i)(1). Thus, the minimum
sentence Reames faced here was nine years and the maximum was thirty-six
years. By imposing a sentence of twelve years for Reames’s conviction and
enhancing it by ten years, the trial court imposed a sentence that was in the
middle range of possible sentences.
[16] Turning first to the nature of the offenses, Reames contends that there was
nothing egregious or extraordinary about it. We disagree. Reames took
advantage of the kindness of a relative stranger in accepting Smith’s offer to
take him to buy cigarettes. And, Reames did much more than take Smith’s
vehicle. After successfully stealing Smith’s Jeep by threatening to stab him,
Reames or someone working in concert with Reames proceeded to render it
inoperable and heavily damaged its interior and exterior. Also, items that were
inside the vehicle were stolen, including the stereo system and toys belonging to
Smith’s son. Nothing regarding the nature of the offense would warrant a
reduction in Reames’s sentence.
[17] As for Reames’s character, there is nothing redeeming about it. He has had
nearly-constant interaction with the criminal justice system beginning in 1996,
when he was thirteen years old, with an arrest for shoplifting. Also as a
juvenile, he had adjudications for truancy, battery, theft, receiving stolen
property, and sniffing a substance. Since 2000, when he was first tried as an
adult, Reames has had one conviction for Class C felony receiving stolen auto
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 20A03-1606-CR-1332 | January 11, 2017 Page 8 of 10
parts, three convictions for Class D felony auto theft, a conviction for Class D
felony receiving stolen property, a conviction for Class D felony residential
entry, two convictions for Class A misdemeanor resisting law enforcement, two
convictions for Class A misdemeanor operating while intoxicated, a conviction
for Class A misdemeanor conversion, and a conviction for Class C
misdemeanor violating restrictions on pseudoephedrine purchases. He violated
probation twice while serving sentences in earlier cases. Reames’s criminal
history extends well beyond the minimum necessary to support the habitual
offender finding.
[18] Reames also has a continuous record of substance abuse dating back to the age
of ten or twelve, when he first used marijuana. In addition to marijuana, he has
abused synthetic marijuana, alcohol, cocaine (powder and crack), heroin, LSD,
methamphetamine, and prescription pills. He had been drinking alcohol and
smoking marijuana before committing the present offense. Prior efforts to
combat Reames’s addictions, including receiving addictions counseling in the
Department of Correction, clearly have failed, as have multiple other
rehabilitation attempts. As the trial court stated, “all other sanctions have
proved ineffective in rehabilitating this Defendant; said sanctions included
probation, fines, costs, boot camp, work release, drug treatment, home arrest,
shelter care, restitution, drug court, shoplifting clinic, parent meeting and short
term incarceration at the Indiana Department of Correction.” App. p. 72-73.
[19] We acknowledge the difficulties that drug addiction can cause, particularly
when it begins at a very young age, and that treatment in lieu of harsh
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 20A03-1606-CR-1332 | January 11, 2017 Page 9 of 10
punishment can be preferable in some instances. However, such treatment has
been attempted multiple times with Reames, it has failed every time, and he
continues to lead a life of crime. There comes a point where an extended
period of incarceration may be necessary in order to protect the public from an
addict’s repeated criminal behavior against other persons. It is logical to
conclude that point has been reached with Reames, given his numerous
convictions. His sentence of twenty-two years, with one year suspended, is not
inappropriate in light of his character and the nature of the offense.
Conclusion
[20] There is sufficient evidence to sustain Reames’s conviction for Level 3 felony
robbery while armed with a deadly weapon, and his sentence is not
inappropriate. We affirm.
[21] Affirmed.
Bailey, J., and Riley, J., concur.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 20A03-1606-CR-1332 | January 11, 2017 Page 10 of 10