Qwonzell L. Jackson v. State of Indiana (mem. dec.) ( 2017 )

MEMORANDUM DECISION
Pursuant to Ind. Appellate Rule 65(D),
this Memorandum Decision shall not be FILED
regarded as precedent or cited before any
Jul 10 2017, 5:35 am
court except for the purpose of establishing
the defense of res judicata, collateral CLERK
Indiana Supreme Court
estoppel, or the law of the case. Court of Appeals
and Tax Court
ATTORNEY FOR APPELLANT ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE
Timothy P. Broden Curtis T. Hill, Jr.
Lafayette, Indiana Attorney General of Indiana
Michael Gene Worden
Indianapolis, Indiana
IN THE
COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA
Qwonzell L. Jackson, July 10, 2017
Appellant-Defendant, Court of Appeals Case No.
79A04-1612-CR-2905
v. Appeal from the Tippecanoe
Superior Court
State of Indiana, The Honorable Randy J. Williams,
Appellee-Plaintiff Judge
Trial Court Cause No.
79D01-1510-F5-49
Crone, Judge.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 79A04-1612-CR-2905 | July 10, 2017 Page 1 of 6
Case Summary
[1] Qwonzell Larville Jackson appeals his conviction, following a jury trial, for
level 5 felony carrying a handgun without a license while having a prior felony
conviction and level 5 felony criminal recklessness. He contends that the State
presented insufficient evidence to support his convictions. Finding the evidence
sufficient, we affirm.
Facts and Procedural History
[2] Leroy Rimschneider and Antwon Sutton, brothers and mechanics by trade, had
been friends with Jackson for several years. Jackson had recently purchased a
radio and amplifier for the sound system in his van. On the afternoon of
October 7, 2015, Jackson drove his van to Sutton’s house to seek Sutton’s
assistance to install the sound equipment. Early the next morning, Jackson
went to start the engine of his van when he noticed that his recently installed
sound equipment was missing. Jackson immediately suspected Rimschneider
and Sutton as the culprits.
[3] Jackson first drove to Rimschneider’s house. Rimschneider’s fiancée was
outside the house about to take their children to school when she noticed
Jackson pull up. She went back inside the house and told Rimschneider that
Jackson was waiting outside to speak with him. According to Rimschneider,
Jackson was “very hostile and angry.” Tr. Vol. 2 at 67. Jackson accused
Rimschneider and his brother of stealing his stereo equipment, which
Rimschneider denied. Unsatisfied with Rimschneider’s denial, Jackson
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 79A04-1612-CR-2905 | July 10, 2017 Page 2 of 6
announced that he was going to drive to Sutton’s house next. Rimschneider,
concerned about his brother’s safety, asked a friend to drive him to Sutton’s
house.
[4] Jackson arrived at Sutton’s house and called him on the phone. Sutton was
asleep, and his fiancée answered the phone. As they conversed, she went to the
front door and noticed that Jackson was peering into the windows of their car.
Jackson asked her to wake up Sutton because he needed to speak with him
about his missing sound equipment. Sutton came outside, and Jackson angrily
accused him. Sutton also denied the theft, and Rimschneider arrived at the
house shortly thereafter. Rimschneider’s friend stayed inside the vehicle. A
heated argument ensued primarily between Rimschneider and Jackson.
Jackson eventually left in his van, but assured the brothers that he would return.
[5] After Jackson left, Rimschneider’s fiancée arrived at Sutton’s house. The two
brothers and their fiancées stood and talked in the front lawn near the street.
After five to seven minutes, Jackson returned, parked on the opposite side of
the street, and exited the van with a semiautomatic handgun. Jackson walked
directly toward Rimschneider while pointing the gun at him, saying, “I’ll shoot
you.” Id. at 71. The threat angered Rimschneider, and he began walking
toward Jackson. Jackson returned to his van, reached out the window, and
shot a single round at Rimschneider, who was near the rear of the van. Jackson
sped off, and Rimschneider and his friend attempted to pursue him.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 79A04-1612-CR-2905 | July 10, 2017 Page 3 of 6
[6] A few minutes after the shooting, the police arrived to investigate. The police
searched for a bullet casing and signs of impact, but were unsuccessful. They
interviewed neighbors, who had heard a loud “bang,” and one neighbor
identified the sound as a gunshot. Id. at 19. While the police were still on the
premises, Jackson called Sutton’s phone, and his fiancée answered it. She
broadcasted the conversation over speaker phone so that those standing near
her could hear Jackson. Lafayette Police Department Officer Heath Provo
heard Sutton’s fiancée ask Jackson why he shot at Rimschneider. Jackson
responded, “[B]ecause they rolled up on me.” Id. at 161; State’s Exs. 2 and 2-R.
Jackson was arrested at his residence. The police executed a search warrant for
the residence and the van, but it did not yield any handgun-related evidence.
[7] The State charged Jackson with level 5 felony carrying a handgun without a
license while having a prior felony conviction, level 5 felony attempted battery,
level 5 felony criminal recklessness, level 6 felony pointing a firearm, and with
being a habitual offender. Following a jury trial, Jackson was found guilty of
level 5 felony carrying a handgun without a license while having a prior felony
conviction and level 5 felony criminal recklessness. The trial court imposed
concurrent six-year sentences with a year and a half of the sentence suspended.
Jackson now appeals.
Discussion and Decision
[8] Jackson contends that the State failed to present sufficient evidence to support
both convictions. The standard of review for a sufficiency claim is well settled.
We neither reweigh the evidence nor assess the credibility of witnesses. Bell v.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 79A04-1612-CR-2905 | July 10, 2017 Page 4 of 6
State, 31 N.E.3d 495, 499 (Ind. 2015). Rather, we look to the evidence and
reasonable inferences drawn therefrom that support the conviction. Id.
Whenever presented with conflicting evidence, we consider such evidence in
the light most favorable to the verdict. McHenry v. State, 820 N.E.2d 124, 126
(Ind. 2005). A conviction will be affirmed unless “no reasonable fact-finder
could find the elements of the crime proven beyond a reasonable doubt.” Moore
v. State, 27 N.E.3d 749, 754 (Ind. 2015).
[9] To convict Jackson of level 5 felony carrying a handgun without a license while
having a prior felony conviction, the State was required to prove that he
knowingly or intentionally carried a handgun in a vehicle or on or about his
body without being licensed, and he had been convicted of a felony within
fifteen years before the date of the offense. Ind. Code § 35-47-2-1(a), -(e)(2)(B)
(2015). To convict Jackson of level 5 felony criminal recklessness, the State was
required to prove that he recklessly, knowingly, or intentionally performed an
act that created a substantial risk of bodily injury to another person by shooting
a firearm into a place where people are likely to gather. Ind. Code § 35-42-2-
2(b)(2)(A) (2015). Jackson contends that there is insufficient evidence to
support his convictions because the witness testimony that he possessed a
handgun was “wholly unsupported by police investigation.” Appellant’s Br. at
6. Specifically, Jackson notes that the police failed to find the handgun, a spent
shell casing, any evidence of impact, or any other handgun-related accessories.
[10] While there is a lack of physical evidence here, there is substantial direct
evidence via witness testimony. Five eyewitnesses testified that Jackson
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 79A04-1612-CR-2905 | July 10, 2017 Page 5 of 6
possessed a handgun and pointed it at the brothers, and they either saw or
heard the handgun being fired at Rimschneider. Three neighbors, who served
as corroborating witnesses, testified that they heard a loud bang, and at least
one identified the sound as a gunshot. Moreover, Officer Provo and Sutton’s
fiancée testified that they heard Jackson admit to shooting at Rimschneider
because “[Rimschneider and Sutton] rolled up on me.” Id. at 161; State’s Exs.
2 and 2-R. Based on these facts, the trier of fact could reasonably infer that
Jackson did indeed possess a handgun and fired that handgun at Rimschneider.
Jackson’s sufficiency claim is merely an invitation for this Court to reweigh the
evidence and assess the credibility of the witnesses, which we cannot do. Bell,
31 N.E.3d at 499. Therefore, we affirm Jackson’s convictions.
[11] Affirmed.
Baker, J., and Barnes, J., concur.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 79A04-1612-CR-2905 | July 10, 2017 Page 6 of 6