Landon Patrick Hill 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 Aug 28 2020, 8:52 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 ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE
Rodney T. Sarkovics Curtis T. Hill, Jr.
Sarkovics Law Attorney General
Carmel, Indiana Caryn N. Szyper
Deputy Attorney General
Indianapolis, Indiana
IN THE
COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA
Landon Patrick Hill, August 28, 2020
Appellant-Defendant, Court of Appeals Case No.
20A-CR-597
v. Appeal from the Hamilton Circuit
Court
State of Indiana, The Honorable Paul A. Felix,
Appellee-Plaintiff Judge
Trial Court Cause No.
29C01-1809-F5-6649
Crone, Judge.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 20A-CR-597 | August 28, 2020 Page 1 of 10
Case Summary
[1] Landon Patrick Hill challenges the sufficiency of the evidence to support his
convictions for level 5 felony carrying a handgun without a license, class B
misdemeanor marijuana possession, and level 6 felony theft. We affirm.
Facts and Procedural History
[2] The facts most favorable to the verdict are as follows. Around 3:00 a.m. on
September 21, 2018, Westfield Police Sergeant Scott Grimes was patrolling a
two-lane stretch of Indiana State Road 32. He passed a pickup truck with a
trailer traveling at thirty-eight miles per hour in a thirty-miles-per-hour zone.
When he looked in his rearview mirror, he could see that the trailer taillights
were not activated, as required by law. He turned his vehicle around and
followed the truck. At that point, he saw that the trailer did not have a license
plate, as required by law.
[3] Hill, the truck’s driver and sole occupant, pulled into the parking lot of a closed
gas station. Shortly thereafter, as Hill began to pull away from the pump,
Sergeant Grimes activated his lights and initiated a traffic stop. During the
stop, Hill was overtly nervous and excessively sweaty, considering the mild
weather. Sergeant Grimes asked for Hill’s license and registration, and Hill
gave him his name. The truck was registered in the name of a female, who Hill
said was his girlfriend. Sergeant Grimes noticed that the trailer was empty and
that the pole that ordinarily supports the trailer when it is not attached to a
vehicle was in an unusual position, just a couple inches off the ground. He
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 20A-CR-597 | August 28, 2020 Page 2 of 10
asked Hill where he had gotten the trailer and when he had attached it to the
truck. Hill said that he had bought it “from a guy in Anderson about a week
ago” and had attached it earlier that day. Tr. Vol. 2 at 75. He was unable to
produce any paperwork or documentation showing ownership of the trailer.
The only marking on the trailer was a “Tractor Supply” stamp. Id. at 79.
[4] Sergeant Dewey Abney Grimes ran Hill’s name through a BMV query and
discovered that Hill was driving on a suspended license. Hill was removed
from the truck and arrested. When Officer retrieved Hill’s cell phone from the
truck at Hill’s request, he discovered “marijuana shake” on the driver’s side
floorboard. Id. at 106. An inventory search of the truck produced a loaded .45
caliber handgun tucked under the steering column and a white bag containing a
jar of marijuana, which was found just behind the center console.
[5] The State charged Hill with class A misdemeanor carrying a handgun without a
license, class A misdemeanor driving while suspended, class B misdemeanor
possession of marijuana, and level 5 felony carrying a handgun without a
license with a prior conviction for class D felony carrying a handgun without a
license. Meanwhile, officers attempted to ascertain the ownership of the trailer.
Officer Steffan Short went to Tractor Supply to see whether they had similar
trailers and discovered that the trailer in question had not been stolen from
Tractor Supply. Not long after, police received a report of a trailer stolen from
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 20A-CR-597 | August 28, 2020 Page 3 of 10
Bullpen Tournaments (Bullpen). Bullpen reported that one or two 1 of its trailers
had recently been stolen from Grand Park Sports Complex. Edward Devine,
Bullpen’s superintendent at Grand Park, identified the trailer recovered from
Hill as one of Bullpen’s trailers. He explained that the trailer had not been used
on public roads but was used only to transport sandbags to and from the various
athletic fields; therefore, it was not plated. Bullpen had purchased the trailer
two years earlier for just over $1200.
[6] The State amended the charging information to add a count of level 6 felony
theft. Hill proceeded pro se during pretrial proceedings, failed to appear for his
jury trial, and was tried in absentia. The jury convicted Hill as charged. The
trial court vacated the misdemeanor handgun conviction on double jeopardy
grounds and sentenced Hill to an aggregate six-year term. Hill now appeals.
Additional facts will be provided as necessary.
Discussion and Decision
Section 1 – The evidence is sufficient to support Hill’s
conviction for carrying a handgun without a license.
[7] Hill first challenges the sufficiency of the evidence to support his conviction for
carrying a handgun without a license. When reviewing a challenge to the
sufficiency of evidence, we neither reweigh evidence nor judge witness
1
The record is unclear whether one or two trailers had been stolen from Bullpen. This particular report
appeared to involve one trailer.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 20A-CR-597 | August 28, 2020 Page 4 of 10
credibility. Moore v. State, 27 N.E.3d 749, 754 (Ind. 2015). Rather, we consider
only the evidence and reasonable inferences most favorable to the verdict and
will affirm the conviction unless no reasonable factfinder could find the
elements of the crime proven beyond a reasonable doubt. Id. Reversal is
appropriate only when reasonable persons would be unable to form inferences
as to each material element of the offense. McCray v. State, 850 N.E.2d 998,
1000 (Ind. Ct. App. 2006), trans. denied. The evidence need not “overcome
every reasonable hypothesis of innocence.” Dalton v. State, 56 N.E.3d 644, 647
(Ind. Ct. App. 2016) (citation omitted), trans. denied. Circumstantial evidence
alone may sustain a conviction if that circumstantial evidence supports a
reasonable inference of guilt. Maul v. State, 731 N.E.2d 438, 439 (Ind. 2000).
[8] Hill was convicted of carrying a handgun without a license as a level 5 felony,
which required the State to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that he (1) carried
a handgun; (2) in any vehicle or on or about his body; (3) without being
licensed; and (4) had a prior conviction for carrying a handgun without a
license. Ind. Code § 35-47-2-1. Hill’s only argument is that the evidence is
insufficient to support the jury’s conclusion that he knowingly possessed the
handgun recovered from the truck.
[9] A conviction for unlawful possession of a handgun may rest on proof of either
actual or constructive possession. Houston v. State, 997 N.E.2d 407, 409-10
(Ind. Ct. App. 2013). Actual possession occurs when the defendant has direct
physical control over the contraband; constructive possession is established
when the defendant has both the capability and the intent to maintain dominion
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 20A-CR-597 | August 28, 2020 Page 5 of 10
and control over the contraband. Id. at 410. Hill’s possession of the truck
which housed the handgun is sufficient to establish that he was capable of
maintaining dominion and control over it. Id. The facts supporting his
capability are even more compelling given the location of the handgun within
the vehicle – underneath the steering column, within his reach.
[10] Hill asserts that he did not have exclusive possession of the truck because the
truck belonged to his girlfriend. However, the issue is not ownership of the
vehicle or premises where the contraband is found but rather possession of it.
Goliday v. State, 708 N.E.2d 4, 6 (Ind. 1999) (emphasis added). Hill was the sole
occupant of the truck when Sergeant Grimes stopped it. As such, he had
exclusive control over the vehicle at the time of the stop. “His exclusive
possession of the vehicle was sufficient to raise a reasonable inference of
intent.” Id.[11] Hill had both the capability and intent to maintain dominion and control over
the handgun. His arguments concerning the officers’ failure to check for
fingerprints or search for documentation concerning the handgun are merely
invitations to reweigh evidence, as is his argument concerning plain view. We
decline his invitations. The evidence and reasonable inferences most favorable
to the verdict are sufficient to support Hill’s conviction for carrying a handgun
without a license. We therefore affirm it.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 20A-CR-597 | August 28, 2020 Page 6 of 10
Section 2 – The evidence is sufficient to support Hill’s
conviction for marijuana possession.
[12] Hill also challenges the sufficiency of the evidence to support his conviction for
marijuana possession. To convict Hill of class B misdemeanor marijuana
possession, the State was required to prove that he knowingly possessed
marijuana. Ind. Code § 35-48-4-11. Hill again focuses his argument on the
possession element, claiming that the State failed to prove that he constructively
possessed the marijuana. As with the handgun, the marijuana was discovered
inside a vehicle in which Hill was the driver and sole occupant. He therefore
was capable of possessing it. Also like the handgun, the bag of marijuana was
close to Hill – right behind the center console, within his reach. We also note
that Officer Abney observed marijuana shake on the driver’s side floor of the
truck, where Hill had been seated. Hill’s argument that the absence of an odor
suggests that he was not the person who created the mess is an invitation to
reweigh evidence, which we may not do. The evidence was sufficient to
establish Hill’s intent. Hill constructively possessed the marijuana; therefore,
we affirm his conviction for marijuana possession.
Section 3 – The evidence is sufficient to support Hill’s theft
conviction.
[13] Hill also asserts that the evidence is insufficient to support his theft conviction.
To convict Hill of theft, the State was required to prove beyond a reasonable
doubt that he knowingly or intentionally exerted unauthorized control over
property of another person with intent to deprive the other person of any part of
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 20A-CR-597 | August 28, 2020 Page 7 of 10
its value or use. Ind. Code § 35-43-4-2(a). The offense is a level 6 felony if the
property has a value of at least $750 and less than $50,000. Ind. Code § 35-43-
4-2(a)(1).
[14] Probative evidence establishes that Hill was in possession of Bullpen’s stolen
trailer. Superintendent Devine testified that the trailer recovered from Hill is
“one of our trailers. I’m sure of it.” Tr. Vol. 2 at 124. He recognized the trailer
not merely because it was the same model but also because of the unique way
that they configured the trailers for use at Grand Park. Id. at 129.
[15] Nevertheless, as Hill correctly asserts, the mere unexplained possession of
stolen property, standing alone, does not automatically support a conviction for
theft. Fortson v. State, 919 N.E.2d 1136, 1143 (Ind. 2010). Rather, such
possession is to be considered along with other evidence, such as how recent or
distant in time his possession was to the time the item was stolen and other
circumstances such as proximity to the place of the theft. Id. Here, Bullpen
superintendent Devine explained the process of unloading and parking the
trailers at the end of the athletics season and indicated that the timing of the
theft is consistent with the date on which Hill was found with the trailer and
arrested. Moreover, the gas station where Hill was found with the trailer was
within two or three miles of the Grand Park outbuilding where the trailers had
been parked. Hill told Sergeant Grimes that he lived in Noblesville and said
that he was on his way home from his girlfriend’s house in Indianapolis. When
the sergeant asked him “how he had gotten to be on State Road 32 in
Westfield,” he said that “he needed to check his GPS to remember how he got
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 20A-CR-597 | August 28, 2020 Page 8 of 10
to where he was at from Indianapolis.” Tr. Vol. 2 at 76. It was within the
jury’s province to assess the credibility of Hill’s explanation for his presence in
Westfield at 3:00 a.m.
[16] Moreover, both Sergeant Grimes and Officer Abney testified that Hill was
pouring with sweat even though the weather was mild and it was the middle of
the night. The officers also noticed abnormalities in the way that the trailer had
been fastened to the truck that Hill was driving. For example, both officers
explained that their attention was drawn to the unusual position of the pole at
the front of the trailer, which was too close to the ground. Officer Abney, who
has owned and used a trailer for many years, testified concerning other aspects
of the trailer that were abnormal, most notably, that the secondary trailer
hooks, which keep the trailer from becoming detached if the truck and trailer hit
bumps or potholes, simply were not there. He stated that it “looked like [the
trailer] was just put on there very quickly and not with any thought of hauling
things.” Id. at 103. This evidence supports a reasonable inference that Hill’s
profuse sweating was attributable at least in part to his recent exertion in
(quickly and awkwardly) connecting the trailer to the truck at the nearby Grand
Park. Hill’s statements to Sergeant Grimes that he had purchased the trailer a
week earlier from an unnamed guy in Anderson amount to an invitation to
reweigh evidence, which we may not do. The evidence and reasonable
inferences most favorable to the verdict are sufficient to support the jury’s
conclusion that Hill knowingly or intentionally exerted unauthorized control
over Bullpen’s trailer with intent to deprive Bullpen of its use and value.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 20A-CR-597 | August 28, 2020 Page 9 of 10
[17] Finally, Hill claims that the State failed to establish that the trailer had a value
of at least $750. Devine testified that he was the purchasing agent who actually
bought the trailer two years earlier for “just over $1200.” Id. at 129. He also
explained that the Bullpen trailers were never taken out on the roadways and
were used only to haul sandbags around Grand Park. See State’s Ex. 2
(photograph depicting stolen trailer as clean and in good condition). This
testimony supports the jury’s reasonable inference that the trailer was still worth
at least $750. Based on the foregoing, we conclude that the evidence is
sufficient to support Hill’s conviction for theft as a level 6 felony. Accordingly,
we affirm.
[18] Affirmed.
Robb, J., and Brown, J., concur.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 20A-CR-597 | August 28, 2020 Page 10 of 10