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


Menu:
  •       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
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 49A02-1407-CR-506

Filed Date: 3/16/2015

Precedential Status: Precedential

Modified Date: 3/16/2015