Stephanie James v. State of Indiana (mem. dec.) ( 2017 )

MEMORANDUM DECISION
Pursuant to Ind. Appellate Rule 65(D), FILED
this Memorandum Decision shall not be Oct 18 2017, 8:49 am
regarded as precedent or cited before any
CLERK
court except for the purpose of establishing Indiana Supreme Court
Court of Appeals
the defense of res judicata, collateral and Tax Court
estoppel, or the law of the case.
ATTORNEY FOR APPELLANT ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE
Barbara J. Simmons Curtis T. Hill, Jr.
Oldenburg, Indiana Attorney General of Indiana
Laura R. Anderson
Deputy Attorney General
Indianapolis, Indiana
IN THE
COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA
Stephanie James, October 18, 2017
Appellant-Defendant, Court of Appeals Case No.
49A02-1704-CR-794
v. Appeal from the
Marion Superior Court
State of Indiana, The Honorable
Appellee-Plaintiff Jose D Salinas, Judge
The Honorable Robert P. Hurley,
Judge Pro Tempore
Trial Court Cause No.
49G14-1603-F6-11776
Kirsch, Judge.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 49A02-1704-CR-794 | October 18, 2017 Page 1 of 4
[1] Stephanie James was convicted of Possession of Cocaine as a Level 6 felony. 1
The trial court entered judgment of conviction as a Class A misdemeanor. She
now appeals contending that the evidence was not sufficient to support her
conviction.
[2] We affirm.
Facts and Procedural History
[3] On March 26, 2016, Officer Kenny Sanders of the Marion County Sherriff’s
Department was working as off-duty security for the Brownstone Apartments at
34th and Meridian Streets. Just after midnight, he was sitting in an unmarked
Dodge Charger when he saw James standing outside of a car parked in front of
the apartment complex in a no parking zone. The area was well lit and he
could easily see James. Officer Sanders got on his PA and told her to move the
car from that location. At that point, James began to walk towards his vehicle
which was parked directly across the street from her. When she began to cross
the street, a car had to swerve to keep from hitting her. She continued to walk
in a staggering manner toward the officer. Once she crossed the street, Officer
Sanders asked her if everything was okay, and she told him she was there to
retrieve a cell phone that had been stolen from her. Officer Sanders detected an
odor of alcohol emanating from her person. When he asked James who stole
1
See Ind. Code § 35-49-4-6(a).
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 49A02-1704-CR-794 | October 18, 2017 Page 2 of 4
her telephone, she began to laugh and speak in a high tone of voice. The officer
also noted that she had bloodshot eyes and unsteady balance and arrested her
for public intoxication. He searched the outer pockets of James’ clothing and
placed her in the back of his car as he waited for a transport wagon to arrive.
[4] After the wagon arrived, Officer Sanders removed James from his car and
walked her to the back of the wagon where the wagon driver performed a
search which included removal of James’ shoes. When the wagon driver
handed the shoes to Officer Sanders, he discovered a small plastic bag which
contained cocaine inside her right shoe. Officer Sanders put the narcotics in a
heat-sealed envelope which was delivered to the property room.
[5] At trial, Officer Sanders identified the State’s Exhibit 2 as the crack cocaine that
he recovered during the wagon driver’s search of James on March 24,2016, and
the parties’ stipulated to the laboratory test results. The jury found James guilty
as charged, and the trial court entered judgment of conviction as a Class A
misdemeanor.
Discussion and Decision
[6] When reviewing a claim of insufficient evidence, we will consider only the
evidence and reasonable inferences that support the conviction. Gray v. State,
957 N.E.2d 171, 174 (Ind. 2011). We will affirm if, based on the evidence and
inferences, a reasonable jury could have found the defendant guilty beyond a
reasonable doubt. Bailey v. State, 907 N.E.2d 1003, 1005 (Ind. 2009).
Circumstantial evidence alone is sufficient if inferences may reasonably be
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 49A02-1704-CR-794 | October 18, 2017 Page 3 of 4
drawn that enable the factfinder to find the defendant guilty beyond a
reasonable doubt. Pratt v. State, 744 N.E.2d 434, 437 (Ind. 2001).
[7] To convict James of Level 6 felony possession of cocaine, the State was
required to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that she knowingly or
intentionally possessed cocaine, and possession may be either actual or
constructive. Ind. Code § 35-48-4-6(a); Holmes v. State, 785 N.E.2d 658, 660
(Ind. Ct. App. 2003). Actual possession occurs when a person has direct
physical control over an item. Grim v. State, 797 N.E.2d 825, 831 (Ind. Ct. App.
2003).
[8] Here, James had direct physical control over the cocaine. The cocaine was on
her person. Specifically, it was in her right shoe. Evidence was introduced at
trial that it is common for users of illegal drugs to conceal them in their shoes.
Tr. Vol. II at 63, 77. Moreover, the cocaine here at issue was crack cocaine
which is a hard, rock-like substance. See Polk v. State, 683 N.E.2d 567 (Ind.
1997). Finally, Officer Sanders testified that after he told her she was being
arrested for possession of cocaine, James made a statement to him to arrest her
“for that.” Tr. Vol II at 30-33. From this evidence, it was reasonable for the
jury to conclude that James knowingly possessed the cocaine, and the evidence
was sufficient to support James’ conviction.
[9] Affirmed.
Najam, J., and Brown, J., concur.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 49A02-1704-CR-794 | October 18, 2017 Page 4 of 4