Stacy Robey v. State of Indiana (mem. dec.) ( 2016 )

MEMORANDUM DECISION
Pursuant to Ind. Appellate Rule 65(D), FILED
this Memorandum Decision shall not be Jun 28 2016, 9:04 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
Barbara J. Simmons Gregory F. Zoeller
Oldenburg, Indiana Attorney General of Indiana
Karl M. Scharnberg
Deputy Attorney General
Indianapolis, Indiana
IN THE
COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA
Stacy Robey, June 28, 2016
Appellant-Defendant, Court of Appeals Case No.
49A02-1510-CR-1541
v. Appeal from the Marion Superior
Court
State of Indiana, The Honorable Barbara Crawford,
Appellee-Plaintiff Judge
Trial Court Cause No.
49G09-1502-CM-05064
Bailey, Judge.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 49A02-1510-CR-1541 | June 28, 2016 Page 1 of 5
Case Summary
[1] Stacy Robey (“Robey”) appeals her conviction of Theft, a Class A
Misdemeanor.1 She challenges the conviction on the grounds of insufficient
evidence. We affirm.
Facts and Procedural History
[2] On October 22, 2014, Robey entered the Dollar General store located in
Wanamaker, a neighborhood of Indianapolis. She proceeded to the make-up
section, where manager Penny Renollet (“Renollet”) observed Robey placing
make-up in her shopping basket indiscriminately, paying no attention to the
color of the make-up. (Tr. at 11) Finding this action suspicious, Renollet
decided to follow Robey around the store. Robey placed several DVDs into her
shopping basket before going down the bath aisle. (Tr. at 12)
[3] Renollet watched Robey from the adjacent toy aisle, where she was able to see
her through the peg board separating the aisles. (Tr. at 12) Renollet saw Robey
stuff the items from her shopping basket into her purse. Renollet confronted
Robey at the end of the aisle and asked her to come to the front of the store so
Renollet could collect the items Robey had stuffed into her purse. Robey
complied with this request.
1
Ind. Code § 35-43-4-2(a).
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 49A02-1510-CR-1541 | June 28, 2016 Page 2 of 5
[4] Once at the front counter, Robey removed a crochet set from her purse and
placed it into the basket. Renollet saw there were still DVDs and make-up in
the purse, and she attempted to remove the items; however, Robey took the
purse and ran out the front door, catching Renollet’s hand in the strap and
pulling her out of the store. (Tr. at 15) Once outside, the purse strap broke, and
Robey took the purse, entered a car containing two men, and drove off. Robey
made no attempt to pay for the make-up and DVDs in the purse.
[5] Aubrey Schell (“Schell”), an employee of the Dollar General, witnessed the
conflict between Renollet and Robey and asked a customer to call law
enforcement to the scene. Although Robey was able to escape the scene before
law enforcement arrived, the detective was able to put together a photo array
and show it to Renollet and Schell. Both Renollet and Schell independently
identified Robey as the perpetrator. Renollet reviewed the security footage of
the crime and estimated that Robey was able to steal merchandise valued
between $50 and $100.
[6] Robey was arrested four months later on a separate offense. On February 12,
2015, based upon Renollet and Schell’s previous identification, Robey was
charged with two counts of Class A Misdemeanor Theft. On July 21, 2015, the
first charge was dropped, and the trial court held a bench trial on the second
count against Robey. The court found Robey guilty of Class A Misdemeanor
Theft related to the October 22, 2014, incident. On September 8, 2015, the
court entered a sentence of 365 days, with all 365 days suspended to probation.
Robey appeals the conviction.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 49A02-1510-CR-1541 | June 28, 2016 Page 3 of 5
Discussion and Decision
[7] Robey alleges the State presented insufficient evidence to support her
conviction of Theft. When we review a claim of insufficient evidence, we
consider only probative evidence and reasonable inferences supporting the
judgment; if these allowed a reasonable trier of fact to find the defendant guilty,
we will affirm. Sargent v. State, 875 N.E.2d 762, 767 (Ind. Ct. App. 2007). We
will reweigh neither the evidence nor the credibility of witnesses. Id.
[8] Robey claims that the State failed to prove any element of the Theft offense. A
person commits Theft under Indiana law if that person “knowingly or
intentionally exerts unauthorized control over property of another person[ ]
with the intent to deprive the other person of any part of its value or use.” I.C.
§ 35-43-4-2(a). The evidence supporting the conviction is as follows. Renollet
saw Robey place make-up and DVDs into her purse from her shopping basket.
When Renollet attempted to recover the items, Robey placed only one item
back in the basket and ran off, even though Renollet could see a number of
items remaining. Robey made no attempt to pay for the goods. After viewing
security camera footage, Renollet estimated that Robey had deprived Dollar
General of merchandise valued between $50 and $100. Additionally, both
Renollet and Schell were able to identify Robey from a photo array. Schell also
testified about her observations of the struggle between Renollet and Robey at
the counter in the front of the store. There was sufficient evidence from which
a reasonable finder of fact could conclude beyond a reasonable doubt that
Robey committed Theft against Dollar General.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 49A02-1510-CR-1541 | June 28, 2016 Page 4 of 5
[9] Affirmed.
Bradford, J., and Altice, J., concur.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 49A02-1510-CR-1541 | June 28, 2016 Page 5 of 5