John F. Jachimiak v. State of Indiana (mem. dec.) ( 2020 )

MEMORANDUM DECISION FILED
Pursuant to Ind. Appellate Rule 65(D), Aug 05 2020, 9:26 am
this Memorandum Decision shall not be CLERK
Indiana Supreme Court
regarded as precedent or cited before any Court of Appeals
and Tax Court
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
Sally Skodinski Curtis T. Hill, Jr.
South Bend, Indiana Attorney General of Indiana
Evan Matthew Comer
Deputy Attorney General
Anthony Smith
Certified Legal Intern
Indianapolis, Indiana
IN THE
COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA
John F. Jachimiak, August 5, 2020
Appellant-Defendant, Court of Appeals Case No.
20A-CR-416
v. Appeal from the St. Joseph
Superior Court
State of Indiana, The Honorable Elizabeth Hardtke,
Appellee-Plaintiff. Magistrate
Trial Court Cause No.
71D02-1909-CM-3374
Mathias, Judge.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 20A-CR-416 | August 5, 2020 Page 1 of 5
[1] John F. Jachimiak appeals from a judgment of the St. Joseph Superior Court,
arguing that insufficient evidence supports his conviction for criminal mischief,
a Class B misdemeanor. Concluding that the evidence is sufficient to support
his conviction, we affirm.
Facts and Procedural History
[2] The events leading to Jachimiak’s conviction for criminal mischief were
precipitated by the end of his long-term relationship with Amelia Lazaro. The
two had been engaged to be married for eight years and, since 2016, had lived
together in a single-family home that Lazaro rented in St. Joseph County. In
early 2016, Lazaro signed a one-year lease with property owner Liem Vu.
Jachimiak did not sign the lease, but he lived there with the permission of both
Vu and Lazaro and contributed to the security deposit, rent and utilities.
[3] When Lazaro’s one-year lease expired, she and Vu verbally agreed that the
lease would continue as a month-to-month tenancy. Two years passed under
this arrangement, during which Lazaro, Jachimiak, and various roommates
lived in the residence. Lazaro remained the only tenant named in the lease.
[4] Jachimiak and Lazaro ended their relationship in September 2019. Shortly after
Jachimiak moved out and returned his keys, he returned to the residence in the
middle of the night. Angry and locked out, Jachimiak yelled obscenities at
Lazaro and her roommate and tried to kick in the front door. He did the same
to the back door and refused Lazaro’s demands to leave. St. Joseph County
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 20A-CR-416 | August 5, 2020 Page 2 of 5
police officers responded to the disturbance and arrested Jachimiak. An officer
observed damage to the property’s front and back doors.
[5] The State charged Jachimiak with criminal mischief, a Class B misdemeanor,
on September 30, 2019. During the bench trial, Lazaro and Vu testified to the
damage Jachimiak caused at the residence, which required Vu to replace one
door in its entirety. Jachimiak admitted to kicking and damaging the doors and
was subsequently found guilty as charged on January 24, 2020. This appeal
followed.
Discussion and Decision
[6] Our standard of review for claims of insufficient evidence is well settled. We
consider only the probative evidence and reasonable inferences therefrom that
support the trial court’s judgment. Drane v. State, 867 N.E.2d 144, 146 (Ind.
2007). We do not reweigh the evidence or judge witness credibility, and we will
affirm the conviction unless no reasonable fact finder could find the elements of
the crime proven beyond a reasonable doubt. Sallee v. State, 777 N.E.2d 1204,
1208 (Ind. Ct. App. 2002), trans. denied.
[7] A person commits Class B criminal mischief when he “recklessly, knowingly,
or intentionally damages or defaces property of another person without the
other person’s consent.” Ind. Code § 35-43-1-2(a). “Property is that ‘of another
person’ if the other person has a possessory or proprietary interest in it, even if
an accused person also has an interest in that property.” I.C. § 35-31.5-2-253(b).
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 20A-CR-416 | August 5, 2020 Page 3 of 5
[8] Jachimiak argues that there is insufficient evidence to support his conviction for
criminal mischief because the State failed to prove that he damaged the
“property of another person.” I.C. § 35-43-1-2(a). Jachimiak contends that he
owned the property that he damaged. Appellant’s Br. p. 7. Yet he concedes
that Vu is “the property owner.” Id. at 8. Nevertheless, Jachimiak insists that
his conviction for criminal mischief cannot stand because he had Vu’s
permission to be at the property; because he contributed to the security deposit,
rent and utilities at the property; and because some of his personal effects
remained at the property. Id.
[9] That Vu is the owner of the property whose doors were damaged by
Jachimiak’s actions is the only reasonable conclusion to be drawn from the
evidence presented. Vu testified that he owned the property. He explained that
he expected his renters, including Jachimiak, to be on the property but that
Jachimiak did not have permission to damage any part of the property. Vu said
that he repaired the damaged doors using the security deposit and that no
additional funds were needed to repair the damage.
Conclusion
[10] Jachimiak’s appeal is a thinly veiled request that this Court reweigh the
evidence, which we will not do. The State presented sufficient evidence of
Jachimiak’s late-night return to the property that Lazaro rented from property
owner Vu. Jachimiak does not dispute that he caused damage to the doors.
Accordingly, we affirm Jachimiak’s conviction for Class B misdemeanor
criminal mischief.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 20A-CR-416 | August 5, 2020 Page 4 of 5
[11] Affirmed.
Bradford, C.J., and Najam, J., concur.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 20A-CR-416 | August 5, 2020 Page 5 of 5