Jerrin Alan Staker v. State of Indiana (mem. dec.) ( 2020 )

MEMORANDUM DECISION
Pursuant to Ind. Appellate Rule 65(D),
this Memorandum Decision shall not be FILED
regarded as precedent or cited before any Jun 23 2020, 9:33 am
court except for the purpose of establishing
CLERK
the defense of res judicata, collateral Indiana Supreme Court
Court of Appeals
estoppel, or the law of the case. and Tax Court
ATTORNEY FOR APPELLANT ATTORNEY FOR APPELLEE
Shawn N. Rountree Curtis T. Hill, Jr.
Frankfort, Indiana Attorney General of Indiana
Samuel J. Dayton
Deputy Attorney General
Indianapolis, Indiana
IN THE
COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA
Jerrin Alan Staker, June 23, 2020
Appellant-Defendant, Court of Appeals Case No.
19A-CR-1159
v. Appeal from the
Clinton Circuit Court
State of Indiana, The Honorable
Appellee-Plaintiff. Bradley K. Mohler, Judge
Trial Court Cause No.
12C01-1711-F6-1210
Kirsch, Judge.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 19A-CR-1159 | June 23, 2020 Page 1 of 7
[1] Jerrin Alan Staker (“Staker”) was convicted after a jury trial of escape 1 as a
Level 6 felony, pleaded guilty to being a habitual offender,2 and was sentenced
to 365 days for the escape conviction, enhanced by 730 days for the habitual
offender adjudication, all executed. Staker appeals his conviction for escape,
arguing that the State failed to present sufficient evidence to support his
conviction.
[2] We affirm.
Facts and Procedural History
[3] On August 31, 2016, Staker was sentenced to 912 days after being convicted of
Level 5 felony battery resulting in serious bodily injury in cause number 12C01-
1509-F3-896 (“Cause 896”). State’s Ex. 1; Appellant’s App. Vol. 2 at 88. In
sentencing Staker in Cause 896, the trial court ordered that he was permitted to
serve the final 182 days of his sentence on home detention through community
corrections if accepted and approved by Clinton County Community
Corrections. State’s Ex. 1; Appellant’s App. Vol. 2 at 88. The trial court’s jail
order, which was incorporated into the final sentencing order, specifically
stated, “community corrections is authorized on standard terms . . . .” State’s Ex.
1 (emphasis added); Appellant’s App. Vol. 2 at 89. The community corrections
rules and regulations of Clinton County are reviewed annually by an advisory
1
See Ind. Code § 35-44.1-3-4(b).
2
See Ind. Code § 35-50-2-8.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 19A-CR-1159 | June 23, 2020 Page 2 of 7
board that includes, among other people, “both judges” in Clinton County. Tr.
Vol. 2 at 29-30.
[4] On September 19, 2017, Staker signed the Clinton County Community
Corrections Adult Home Detention Rules and Regulations, agreeing to abide
by the rules and regulations of the Clinton County community corrections
home detention program. State’s Ex. 3. By signing this form, Staker
acknowledged that if he failed to comply with the conditions in the agreement,
his home detention could be revoked and his suspended sentence imposed and
that “[v]iolation of the order for home detention may subject [him] to
prosecution for the crime of escape under [Indiana Code section] 35-44.1-3-4.”
Id. He also agreed to the following rules and regulations, which were both
written and read aloud to Staker:
10. I understand and agree not to possess or consume any
alcoholic beverage, illegal or illicit drugs or controlled substances
or over the counter drugs containing alcohol, except as prescribed
by a licensed physician. . . .
....
13. I understand that I must obey all the laws of the local, state,
and federal government. Failure to do so may result in a
violation.
Id.; Tr. Vol. 2 at 29, 38.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 19A-CR-1159 | June 23, 2020 Page 3 of 7
[5] Staker submitted to his first drug screen as required by the agreement on
September 26, 2017 and produced a negative result. Tr. Vol. 2 at 35. During
October 2017, Staker failed to report for four drug screens. Id. On October 26,
2017, he did report for a urine drug screen, in which he tested positive for
methamphetamine. State’s Ex. 2. After Staker tested positive for
methamphetamine, a Clinton County community corrections case manager
spoke with him in person about the results, and Staker admitted to the case
manager that he had used methamphetamine. Tr. Vol. 2 at 36.
[6] On November 3, 2017, a notice of violation of term of community corrections
was filed in Cause 896, alleging that Staker had tested positive for
methamphetamine and that he had admitted to ingesting methamphetamine
when confronted with the results of the drug screen. State’s Ex. 2; Tr. Vol. 2 at
23, 25. On November 9, 2017, Staker appeared in front of the trial court for the
violation and admitted to the violation. Tr. Vol. 2 at 25, 28-29.
[7] On November 7, 2017, the State charged Staker with Level 6 felony escape
under cause number 12C01-1711-F6-1210. Appellant’s App. Vol. 2 at 12. On
January 31, 2019, the State filed a motion for leave to file a habitual offender
sentencing enhancement, which the trial court granted the same day. Id. at 24,
27-28. A jury trial was held on April 1, 2019. Id. at 8, 73-75. While the jury
deliberated on the escape charge, Staker pleaded guilty to being a habitual
offender, and the trial court took the plea under advisement pending the jury’s
verdict. Id. at 73-75. After deliberations, the jury found Staker guilty of Level 6
felony escape. Id. at 73-75, 79. On April 25, 2019, the trial court sentenced
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 19A-CR-1159 | June 23, 2020 Page 4 of 7
Staker to 365 days for the escape conviction, enhanced by 730 days for the
habitual offender adjudication, all executed. Id. at 80-81. Staker now appeals.
Discussion and Decision
[8] Staker appeals his conviction for escape as a Level 6 felony, challenging the
sufficiency of the evidence showing that he violated a home detention order.
Specifically, Staker maintains that the home detention rules and regulations that
he agreed to abide by on September 19, 2017 were not “a home detention order
as described in [Indiana Code section] 35-44.1-3-4(b).” Appellant’s Br. at 9.
Staker contends that the State only proved a violation of home detention rules
and regulations, and he asserts that, as a matter of statutory interpretation,
those home detention rules and regulations are not, by themselves, a home
detention order. However, as the State correctly urges in its response to
Staker’s contention, we need not address that question of statutory
interpretation because the trial court’s order sentencing Staker to home
detention in Cause 896 obligated him to comply with the rules and regulations
of community corrections and home detention. State’s Ex. 1; Appellant’s App.
Vol. 2 at 89.
[9] When we review the sufficiency of evidence to support a conviction, we do not
reweigh the evidence or assess the credibility of the witnesses. Lehman v. State,
55 N.E.3d 863, 868 (Ind. Ct. App. 2016), trans. denied. We consider only the
evidence most favorable to the trial court’s ruling and the reasonable inferences
that can be drawn from that evidence. Lock v. State, 971 N.E.2d 71, 74 (Ind.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 19A-CR-1159 | June 23, 2020 Page 5 of 7
2012). We also consider conflicting evidence in the light most favorable to the
trial court’s ruling. Oster v. State, 992 N.E.2d 871, 875 (Ind. Ct. App. 2013),
trans. denied. A conviction will be affirmed if there is substantial evidence of
probative value such that a reasonable trier of fact could have concluded the
defendant was guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. Wolf v. State, 76 N.E.3d 911,
915 (Ind. Ct. App. 2017).
[10] Here, Staker was convicted of Level 6 felony escape. In order to prove that he
committed the offense, the State was required to prove beyond a reasonable
doubt that he “knowingly or intentionally violate[d] a home detention order or
intentionally remove[d] an electronic monitoring device or GPS tracking device
. . . .” Ind. Code § 35-44.1-3-4(b).
[11] The order sentencing Staker stated that he was permitted to serve the final 182
days of his sentence in Cause 896 in the community corrections program “on
standard terms.” State’s Ex. 1.3 The director of the Clinton County community
corrections program testified at Staker’s trial that “both judges” are included on
an advisory board that approves the home detention rules and regulations. Tr.
Vol. 2 at 19, 30. He also testified that the rule against consuming illicit or illegal
substances was specifically set out in the home detention rules and regulations.
Id. at 29-30. Methamphetamine is an “illegal drug.” See Ind. Code § 35-48-4-
3
This statement was contained in the jail order issued on August 31, 2017. State’s Ex. 1. On the same date,
the trial court issued a sentencing order, which contained the statement, “[T]he Court incorporates all other
terms and conditions contained in the Jail Order.” Appellant’s App. Vol. 2 at 89.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 19A-CR-1159 | June 23, 2020 Page 6 of 7
6.1 (prohibiting possession of methamphetamine); Tr. Vol. 2 at 30. Given the
evidence presented, the jury could reasonably have concluded that the use of
the words “standard terms” contained in the sentencing order, see State’s Ex. 1,
included the home detention rules and regulations, which had been judicially
approved, and that Staker was required to follow such rules and regulations as
part of being allowed to serve time on home detention. Before Staker began his
home detention, he signed the home detention rules and regulations and agreed
to abide by them. By doing so, he was agreeing to the home detention rules
and regulations, which had been ordered by the trial court, and these home
detention rules and regulations prohibited him from consuming illegal drugs or
otherwise violating the law. It was, therefore, reasonable for the jury to find
that Staker had violated a home detention order when he violated the home
detention rules and regulations by consuming methamphetamine. We conclude
that the State presented sufficient evidence to prove that Staker knowingly or
intentionally violated a home detention order and to support his conviction for
Level 6 felony escape.
[12] Affirmed.
Najam, J., and Brown, J., concur.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 19A-CR-1159 | June 23, 2020 Page 7 of 7