Dennis Bretzlaff v. State of Indiana (mem. dec.) ( 2015 )

MEMORANDUM DECISION
Mar 16 2015, 9:58 am
Pursuant to Ind. Appellate Rule 65(D), this
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
Suzy St. John Gregory F. Zoeller
Marion County Public Defender Attorney General of Indiana
Appellate Division
Lyubov Gore
Indianapolis, Indiana
Deputy Attorney General
Indianapolis, Indiana
IN THE
COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA
Dennis Bretzlaff, March 16, 2015
Appellant-Defendant, Court of Appeals Case No.
49A02-1407-CR-506
v. Appeal from the Marion Superior
Court
The Honorable Amy M. Jones,
State of Indiana, Judge
Appellee-Plaintiff Case No. 49F08-1402-CM-7848
Crone, Judge.
Case Summary
[1] The trial court found Dennis Bretzlaff guilty of class A misdemeanor possession
of a cellular telephone while incarcerated in a penal facility. Bretzlaff
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 49A02-1407-CR-506| March 16, 2015 Page 1 of 4
challenges the admission of his confession under the corpus delicti rule.
Finding no error, we affirm.
Facts and Procedural History
[2] The facts most favorable to the trial court’s judgment are that Security Officer
Chris Myers worked at the Duvall Residential Center, a community corrections
work release facility. On February 17, 2014, Security Officer Charles Holder
brought a cell phone and a makeshift battery charger to Officer Myers. Officer
Myers retained possession of these items and contacted Bretzlaff, who was
brought to the security office. Officer Myers Mirandized Bretzlaff and recorded
him on video. Bretzlaff acknowledged his rights and admitted to having a cell
phone in the work release facility. He said that he had forgotten that he had it
but once he remembered, he let some other inmates make telephone calls.
[3] The State charged Bretzlaff with class A misdemeanor possession of a cellular
phone while incarcerated. Following a bench trial, the trial court found him
guilty as charged.
Discussion and Decision
[4] To convict Bretzlaff of a class A misdemeanor for possession of a cellular phone
while incarcerated, the State was required to prove beyond a reasonable doubt
that he “knowingly or intentionally possesse[d] a cellular telephone or other
wireless or cellular communications device while incarcerated in a penal
facility.” Ind. Code § 35-44.1-3-8. Bretzlaff argues that there is no evidence
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 49A02-1407-CR-506| March 16, 2015 Page 2 of 4
other than his confession that supports his conviction and that the State failed
to establish corpus delicti.
[5] Under the corpus delicti doctrine, “a crime may not be proven based solely on a
confession.” Malinski v. State, 794 N.E.2d 1071, 1086 (Ind. 2003). A confession
may be introduced at trial only if the State produces corroborating or
independent evidence of the corpus delicti. Sweeney v. State, 704 N.E.2d 86, 105
(Ind. 1998). “[T]his evidence need not prove that a crime was committed
beyond a reasonable doubt, but merely provide an inference that a crime was
committed.” Workman v. State, 716 N.E.2d 445, 447-48 (Ind. 1999) (citation and
quotation marks omitted). The totality of the independent evidence throughout
the course of the trial determines whether such inference has been established.
Hawkins v. State, 884 N.E.2d 939, 945 (Ind. Ct. App. 2008), trans. denied. “[T]he
independent evidence supporting the corpus delicti need not preclude every
possible explanation of the circumstances.” Stevens v. State, 691 N.E.2d 412,
425 (Ind. 1997) (citation and quotation marks omitted), cert. denied.
[6] Here, independent evidence existed to support the admission of Bretzlaff’s
confession.1 At trial, Officer Myers testified that State’s Exhibit One was the
Samsung cell phone and makeshift battery charger obtained from Bretzlaff. Tr.
at 8. This testimony, to which Bretzlaff did not object, was independent
evidence that allowed an inference to be established that Bretzlaff possessed the
1
Consequently, Bretzlaff’s reliance on Moore v. State, 497 N.E.2d 242 (Ind. Ct. App. 1986), is misplaced.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 49A02-1407-CR-506| March 16, 2015 Page 3 of 4
cell phone while incarcerated. The corpus delicti rule was therefore satisfied,
and we affirm Bretzlaff’s conviction.
[7] Affirmed.
Friedlander, J., and Kirsch, J., concur.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 49A02-1407-CR-506| March 16, 2015 Page 4 of 4