Suton A. Sykes v. State of Indiana (mem. dec.) ( 2019 )

MEMORANDUM DECISION
Pursuant to Ind. Appellate Rule 65(D),
FILED
this Memorandum Decision shall not be
regarded as precedent or cited before any Nov 25 2019, 9:15 am
court except for the purpose of establishing CLERK
Indiana Supreme Court
the defense of res judicata, collateral Court of Appeals
and Tax Court
estoppel, or the law of the case.
ATTORNEY FOR APPELLANT ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE
Michael R. Fisher Curtis T. Hill, Jr.
Marion County Public Defender Agency Attorney General of Indiana
Indianapolis, Indiana
Samantha M. Sumcad
Deputy Attorney General
Indianapolis, Indiana
IN THE
COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA
Suton A. Sykes, November 25, 2019
Appellant-Defendant, Court of Appeals Case No.
19A-CR-1073
v. Appeal from the Marion Superior
Court
State of Indiana, The Honorable Alicia A. Gooden,
Appellee-Plaintiff. Judge
Trial Court Cause No.
49G21-1805-F2-15922
Bailey, Judge.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 19A-CR-1073 | November 25, 2019 Page 1 of 7
Case Summary
[1] Suton A. Sykes (“Sykes”) was convicted of several offenses, including
Possession of Cocaine, as a Level 4 felony.1 Sykes now challenges the
sufficiency of evidence supporting his conviction of Possession of Cocaine.
[2] We affirm.
Facts and Procedural History
[3] In April 2018, Sykes agreed to participate in a home-detention program
supervised by Marion County Community Corrections (“MCCC”). Sykes
signed a document acknowledging the requirements of the program, which
included (1) a prohibition on the possession of ammunition and (2) an
obligation to comply with applicable laws. Sykes also consented to searches
conducted to ensure his compliance with the requirements of the program.
[4] On May 15, 2018, Jill Jones (“Jones”) from MCCC—along with assisting
officers from the Indianapolis Metropolitan Police Department (“IMPD”)—
went to Sykes’s residence for a compliance check. Jones knocked on the door
and said, “Community Corrections.” Tr. Vol. II at 37. An IMPD officer then
heard movement, looked through a beveled glass window on the front door,
and saw a person “scurrying” back and forth across the residence. Id. at 43.
1
Ind. Code § 35-48-4-6.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 19A-CR-1073 | November 25, 2019 Page 2 of 7
After two minutes, Sykes came to the door, stepped outside, and nearly closed
the door behind him. Jones explained she was there for a compliance check,
and Sykes allowed entry into the residence. Inside, there was an adult woman
and two children. The officer who had observed the scurrying person believed
that Sykes—and not any other occupant—fit the physical stature of the person
he saw moving inside. At some point, law enforcement spoke with a different
woman who was in the backyard and brought her inside the residence.
[5] Jones began searching the master bedroom. In a nightstand drawer, she found
ammunition, a bag of marijuana, and a marijuana pipe. Another MCCC staff
member searched a backpack that was hanging on a closet door in the master
bedroom. The backpack contained a scale with a white, powdery residue on it.
Law enforcement froze the scene and obtained a search warrant. Officers then
searched the residence. They found a baggie of 6.78 grams of cocaine under a
chair in the master bedroom, and a gun on a couch in the living room. The gun
was swabbed and later found to contain DNA matching Sykes’s DNA profile.
[6] The State charged Sykes with several offenses. Following a bifurcated trial,
Sykes was ultimately convicted of (1) Possession of Cocaine, as a Level 4
felony; (2) Unlawful Possession of a Firearm by a Serious Violent Felon, a
Level 4 felony;2 (3) Escape, as a Level 6 felony;3 and (4) Maintaining a
2
I.C. § 35-47-4-5(c).
3
I.C. § 35-44.1-3-4(b).
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 19A-CR-1073 | November 25, 2019 Page 3 of 7
Common Nuisance, a Level 6 felony.4 The trial court imposed concurrent
sentences on these counts, resulting in an aggregate sentence of ten years in the
Indiana Department of Correction with two years suspended.
[7] Sykes now appeals.
Discussion and Decision
[8] “A person may be convicted of an offense only if his guilt is proved beyond a
reasonable doubt.” I.C. § 35-41-4-1. “When a defendant challenges the
sufficiency of the evidence supporting a conviction, ‘we neither reweigh
evidence nor judge witness credibility.’” Cardosi v. State, 128 N.E.3d 1277, 1283
(Ind. 2019) (quoting McCallister v. State, 91 N.E.3d 554, 558 (Ind. 2018)).
Instead, we “consider only the evidence most favorable to the judgment
together with all reasonable inferences that may be drawn from the evidence.”
Id. at 1283 (quoting McCallister, 91 N.E.3d at 558). We will affirm the
conviction if there is “substantial evidence of probative value supporting each
element of the crime from which a reasonable trier of fact could have found the
defendant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.” McElfresh v. State, 51 N.E.3d 103,
107 (Ind. 2016) (quoting Wright v. State, 828 N.E.2d 904, 906 (Ind. 2005)).
[9] A person who knowingly or intentionally possesses cocaine commits a Level 6
felony. See I.C. § 35-48-4-6(a). The offense is elevated to a Level 4 felony if the
4
I.C. § 35-45-1-5(c).
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 19A-CR-1073 | November 25, 2019 Page 4 of 7
person (1) possesses between five grams and ten grams and (2) an enhancing
circumstance applies. See I.C. § 35-48-4-6(c). One such circumstance is that the
person has a prior conviction for dealing in cocaine. See I.C. § 35-48-1-16.5.
[10] On appeal, Sykes focuses only on whether there is sufficient evidence he
knowingly or intentionally possessed the cocaine found under the chair.
Despite the narrow challenge, we nevertheless observe there is ample evidence
law enforcement found between five grams and ten grams of cocaine, in that
there was evidence a baggie contained 6.78 grams of cocaine. Moreover, there
is ample evidence of an applicable enhancing circumstance, in that the State
presented evidence Sykes previously pleaded guilty to dealing in cocaine.
[11] Turning, then, to the issue of possession, the State satisfies this element by
proving either actual possession or constructive possession. Sargent v. State, 27
N.E.3d 729, 732-33 (Ind. 2015). “Actual possession occurs when a person has
direct physical control over the item.” Id. at 723. Constructive possession
occurs “when the person has (1) the capability to maintain dominion and
control over the item; and (2) the intent to maintain dominion and control over
it.” Id. (quoting Gray v. State, 957 N.E.2d 171, 174 (Ind. 2011)). “A trier of fact
may infer that a defendant had the capability to maintain dominion and control
over contraband from the simple fact that the defendant had a possessory
interest in the premises on which an officer found the item.” Gray, 957 N.E.2d
at 174. This inference is permissible “even when that possessory interest is not
exclusive.” Id. However, when that possessory interest is not exclusive, there
must be “additional circumstances pointing to the defendant’s knowledge of the
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 19A-CR-1073 | November 25, 2019 Page 5 of 7
presence and the nature of the item.” Id. at 175. The Indiana Supreme Court
has identified a non-exhaustive list of “additional circumstances,” including
(1) a defendant’s incriminating statements; (2) a defendant’s
attempting to leave or making furtive gestures; (3) the location of
contraband like drugs in settings suggesting manufacturing; (4)
the item’s proximity to the defendant; (5) the location of
contraband within the defendant’s plain view; and (6) the
mingling of contraband with other items the defendant owns.
Id.
[12] Here, there is evidence Jones knocked on the door to Sykes’s residence and
announced, “Community Corrections.” Tr. Vol. II at 37. It then took Sykes
about two minutes to answer the door. Meanwhile, a person of Sykes’s stature
was observed scurrying back and forth inside the residence. When Sykes
eventually answered the door, he stepped out and nearly closed the door behind
him—obscuring the view into the residence. Sykes admitted that he lived in the
residence. Moreover, the police found a baggie of cocaine under a chair in the
bedroom. In that bedroom, there was mail addressed to Sykes.
[13] Sykes asserts there is a lack of additional circumstances that would support a
reasonable inference he knew about the cocaine. However, evidence ties Sykes
to the bedroom where the cocaine was hidden. Moreover, as the State points
out, the cocaine was “discovered in a place that was consistent with a rushed
attempt at concealment.” Appellee’s Br. at 9. In light of the scurrying in the
house, a fact-finder could reasonably infer Sykes was attempting to conceal the
cocaine during the two minutes before he answered the door. We therefore
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 19A-CR-1073 | November 25, 2019 Page 6 of 7
conclude there is sufficient evidence of additional circumstances to support a
conviction predicated upon a theory of constructive possession of the cocaine.
[14] There is sufficient evidence from which a fact-finder could conclude, beyond a
reasonable doubt, Sykes committed Possession of Cocaine, as a Level 4 felony.
[15] Affirmed.
Najam, J., and May, J., concur.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 19A-CR-1073 | November 25, 2019 Page 7 of 7