Franklin Dent v. State of Indiana (mem. dec.) ( 2017 )

MEMORANDUM DECISION
Pursuant to Ind. Appellate Rule 65(D), FILED
this Memorandum Decision shall not be Dec 12 2017, 9:13 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
Thomas C. Allen Curtis T. Hill, Jr.
Fort Wayne, Indiana Attorney General of Indiana
Lee M. Stoy, Jr.
Deputy Attorney General
Indianapolis, Indiana
IN THE
COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA
Franklin Dent, December 12, 2017
Appellant-Defendant, Court of Appeals Case No.
02A05-1707-CR-1615
v. Appeal from the Allen Superior
Court
State of Indiana, The Honorable Frances C. Gull,
Appellee-Plaintiff. Judge
Trial Court Cause No.
02D04-1509-MR-7
Riley, Judge.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 02A05-1707-CR-1615 | December 12, 2017 Page 1 of 13
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
[1] Appellant-Defendant, Franklin Dent (Dent), appeals his conviction for murder,
a felony, Ind. Code § 35-42-1-1; altering the scene of death of a person, a Level
6 felony, I.C.§ 36-2-14-17(b), and his adjudication as a habitual offender.
[2] We affirm.
ISSUE
[3] Dent presents one issue on appeal, which we restate as the following: Whether
the State presented sufficient evidence beyond a reasonable doubt to support
Dent’s convictions.
FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY
[4] Sometime in October of 2014, Roger Ryson (Ryson) introduced his cousin,
Jessica Fecht (Fecht), to Dent. Shortly thereafter, Fecht and Dent began
dating. At the time, Fecht lived with her parents in Wisconsin, but on
December 31, 2014, she moved to Fort Wayne, Indiana. Fecht temporarily
lived with Ryson, then on January 8, 2015, she moved into Dent’s rented home
at 1519 Sherman Boulevard, Fort Wayne, Indiana. Prior to moving to Indiana,
Fecht maintained regular contact with her mother. However, after she moved
in with Dent, Fecht’s contact with her family diminished significantly.
[5] On January 13, 2015, five days after Fecht had moved in with Dent, Dent
visited the home of his sister, Jeana Potts (Jeana), and brother-in-law, Brian
Potts (Brian). While there, Dent asked Brian if he could drop him off at a train
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 02A05-1707-CR-1615 | December 12, 2017 Page 2 of 13
station to travel to Mexico. Brian calculated how much it would cost Dent for
his travels, however, Dent did not have enough money. Dent articulated to
Brian that he “would sell all his weed” to fund his travel expenses. (Transcript
Vol. III, p. 46). Dent grew marijuana inside his house. Between January 13
and January 16, 2015, Dent stayed at Jeana’s and Brian’s house, and Brian
noted Dent’s efforts in trying to sell his “weed.” (Tr. Vol. III, p. 46).
[6] Instead of dropping off Dent at a train station as originally planned, Brian
decided that he would drive Dent to Mexico. According to Brian, he had just
found out where Jeana’s and Dent’s father was living in Mexico, and because
Jeana had not seen her father in “30 something years,” he thought it would be
an “awesome opportunity” for Jeana. (Tr. Vol. III, p. 47). On January 16,
2015, Jeana, Brian, and Dent drove to Mexico. Using the money that he had
earned from selling his “weed,” Dent covered all costs associated with the
travel. (Tr. Vol. III, p. 46). On their way to Mexico, the three only stopped for
gas and food, but otherwise drove “straight through.” (Tr. Vol. III, p. 48). It
took the trio about twenty-four hours to get to Mexico. Dent did not have a
passport, and he had expressed to Jeana that he intended to live indefinitely in
Mexico. Notwithstanding his claim, Dent later obtained a six-month visa for
his stay in Mexico. Conversely, Brian and Jeana stayed in Mexico for about
“three hours tops,” and the pair returned to Indiana on the evening of January
18, 2015. The next day, while cleaning out the car, Jeana discovered Dent’s
cell phone. Upon scrolling through Dent’s phone, Jeana saw several text
messages that were “sexual in nature” from “a girl named Jess.” (Tr. Vol. III,
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 02A05-1707-CR-1615 | December 12, 2017 Page 3 of 13
p. 28). In one of those messages, “[Jess] was upset that [Dent] hadn’t” visited
her, and Dent responded, “[D]o you want me to come tie you up?” (Tr. Vol.
III, p. 28). Startled by the messages, Jeana “erased [the phone] back to factory
settings,” and gave it to her son who needed a cell phone. (Tr. Vol. III, p. 28).
Jeana also found a “shovel” along with “weed clippings” in the trash can,
which she believed belonged to Dent. (Tr. Vol. III, p. 29).
[7] On January 19, 2015, Jeana’s and Dent’s mother saw a Facebook post that
featured Fecht’s and Dent’s picture. The post indicated that Fecht had gone
missing and the last person seen with her was Dent. Jeana’s and Dent’s mother
spoke with Jeana, and Jeana stated that she had seen a “girl’s number” in
Dent’s phone saved “under Jess and not Jessica,” and she presumed it was
Fecht. (Tr. Vol. III, p. 30). Jeana told her mother that she and Brian drove
Dent to Mexico and Fecht was not part of their traveling team. Believing that
Dent was not involved in Fecht’s disappearance, Jeana and Brian went to the
Fort Wayne Police Department (FWPD) to clarify that they had both driven
Dent to Mexico, Fecht did not accompany them; therefore, Dent was not
involved in Fecht’s disappearance. Later that day, Jeana called Dent and
inquired about Fecht, but Dent denied knowing Fecht.
[8] Around this time, Fecht’s family in Wisconsin began to worry about Fecht’s
lack of communication. The last time Fecht’s mother spoke to Fecht was on
January 8, 2015. On January 17, 2015, Ryson, Fecht’s cousin, went to Dent’s
home to see if he could make contact with Fecht. Nobody was home and
neither Dent’s nor Fecht’s vehicle was parked outside Dent’s home. Based on
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 02A05-1707-CR-1615 | December 12, 2017 Page 4 of 13
Ryson’s report, the next day, on January 18, 2015, Fecht’s mother called the
FWPD and requested that an officer conduct a welfare check on her daughter.
Officer Scott Wilson (Officer Wilson) went to Dent’s home, but no one came to
the door. Upon peering through one window that did not have blinds, Officer
Wilson observed trash sprawling throughout the house and it appeared
uninhabitable. After the visit, Officer Wilson contacted Fecht’s mother and
reported that he was unable to locate Fecht at Dent’s home. The next day,
Officer Wilson conducted a second welfare check on Fecht at Dent’s home.
This time, Officer Wilson checked the mail to see if there was anything
addressed to Fecht, but he could not trace anything relevant to Fecht. Again,
Officer Wilson reported his findings to Fecht’s mother and he suggested that
she file a missing person’s report.
[9] At 8:48 a.m. on January 20, 2015, Fecht’s father filed a missing person’s report
with his local police department in Portage, Wisconsin. An equivalent missing
person’s report was filed with the FWPD at approximately 9:30 a.m. on the
same day. In the reports, Fecht’s last known address was Dent’s Fort Wayne
home address. The FWPD assigned the case to Detective Dale Wilson
(Detective Dale). During his investigation, Detective Dale learned from Brian
that Dent was in Mexico and Dent had no intention of returning to the United
States for at least six months. Detective Dale also contacted Mark Ludwig
(Ludwig), the property manager for Dent’s rented home, and informed him that
Dent was in Mexico for at least six months. Concerned that one of his
properties may have been possibly abandoned, Ludwig agreed to meet with
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 02A05-1707-CR-1615 | December 12, 2017 Page 5 of 13
Detective Dale at Dent’s home on January 27, 2015. After Ludwig had signed
a consent form for Detective Dale to gain entry to Dent’s home, Ludwig
attempted to open the door, but the locks had been changed. Eventually,
Detective Dale accessed the home through one of the windows. There was an
endless amount of trash throughout the first floor. On the second floor, one
bedroom had a mattress, a television, clothes on the floor—including women’s
clothing, and a medicine bottle with Fecht’s name. In other bedrooms on the
second floor, there were multiple potted marijuana plants and it appeared to
Detective Dale that Dent had an active “marijuana-grow operation.” (Tr. Vol.
III, p. 163). To grow the marijuana, Dent had rewired the entire second floor,
and Ludwig expressed that it “look[ed] like it took a lot of work.” (Tr. Vol. III,
177). Ludwig and Detective Dale discovered more trash and marijuana in the
basement. Based on the discovery of marijuana, Detective Dale contacted the
FWPD Narcotics Department and the case transformed into a narcotics
investigation.
[10] After the Narcotics Department had completed their investigation, they allowed
Ludwig to re-enter Dent’s house. On February 5, 2015, Ludwig hired Bruce
Brooks (Brooks) and two other people to clean Dent’s home. Brooks oversaw
the cleaning of the basement, and the other two cleaned the first and second
floors. First, Brooks cleared all the trash and debris from the basement rooms.
Brook next swept the floor but in the process, he noticed a pile of dirt about two
to three inches above the concrete floor. Brooks conveyed that information to
Ludwig, and Ludwig contacted the police. Officer Robert Wilcox (Officer
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 02A05-1707-CR-1615 | December 12, 2017 Page 6 of 13
Wilcox) was dispatched to Dent’s home to conduct a follow-up investigation on
the pile of dirt located in the basement. Officer Wilcox used a shovel to dig out
the dirt and “observed a knee of a white . . . human.” (Tr. Vol. II, p. 190). “At
that point, tools were no longer an option” so Officer Wilcox started scooping
the dirt with his hands to avoid “additional damage to the body.” (Tr. Vol. II
p. 190). Officer Wilcox discovered several cigarette butts at various levels in the
hole which were collected for DNA testing. At that point, Officer Wilcox
notified the coroner’s office, and a coroner extracted the body from the hole.
The victim was identified as Fecht and she was found lying on her back with
her legs folded up to her chest. Fecht was dressed in a French maid lingerie
costume, and she had a plaid scarf that was wrapped around her neck. After
several crime scene photographs were taken, Fecht’s body was subsequently
transported to the Northeast Indiana Forensic Center.
[11] On February 6, 2015, a pathologist conducted Fecht’s autopsy. The pathologist
observed several abrasions around Fecht’s neck which he believed had been
caused by the scarf found on her neck. Fecht’s face was swollen, and there was
bruising around her left eye, nose, mouth, and right breast. The pathologist
concluded that Fecht died as a result of asphyxia due to strangulation and
suffocation. The pathologist noted that it was not uncommon for asphyxia
victims to have injuries around the mouth and nose. Also, a forensic biologist
with the Indiana State Police Regional Laboratory submitted several items
recovered from the crime scene for DNA testing. Dent’s DNA was detected in
the vaginal swabs taken from Fecht, and under Fecht’s left-hand fingernail.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 02A05-1707-CR-1615 | December 12, 2017 Page 7 of 13
Furthermore, Dent’s DNA was identified on at least three cigarette butts found
in the hole where Fecht had been buried.
[12] Further investigation revealed that Dent had disclosed to Jeana, Brian, and
several others that he had fantasies of killing a “female and hav[ing] sex with
her dead body.” (Tr. Vol. III, p. 72). Dent also divulged to Brian that he was
into “ball gags” during sex. (Tr. Vol. III, p. 53). Dent’s phone records showed
that between December 1, 2014, and January 13, 2015, there were
approximately 623 text messages between Dent and Fecht. Dent’s last
communication with Fecht was on January 18, 2015. Despite conveying to
Jeana that he planned on staying in Mexico forever in April of 2015, Dent
returned to Indiana. Dent then contacted Ryson, and Dent questioned Roger if
he had seen or heard from Fecht. Ryson responded, “No. Not since January.”
(Tr. Vol. III, p. 64). Dent, in turn, stated that he had not heard from Fecht
since December of 2014.
[13] On September 18, 2015, the State filed an Information, charging Dent with
Count I, murder, a felony, I.C. § 35-42-1-1(1); and Count II, altering the scene
of death of a person, a Level 6 felony, I.C. § 36-2-14-17(b). On October 5,
2015, the State added a habitual offender Count. A bifurcated jury trial was
conducted on May 23 through May 25, 2017. During the first phase of Dent’s
trial, the jury heard evidence with respect to Dent’s charges of murder and
altering the scene of death. The State’s case against Dent was largely
circumstantial, and it included the following evidence: Fecht moved from
Wisconsin to live with Dent in his Fort Wayne home; Fecht’s family members
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 02A05-1707-CR-1615 | December 12, 2017 Page 8 of 13
knew that Fecht was living with Dent; a medicine bottle with Fecht’s name
along with women’s clothing was located in Dent’s home; Dent had confessed
to others that he had fantasies involving him killing a woman and having sex
with the corpse; the cigarette butts found in the hole where Fecht was buried
contained Dent’s DNA; Dent’s DNA was also found in Fecht’s vagina and
under her left hand fingernail; and Dent attempted to move from Indiana to
Mexico. The jury returned a guilty verdict. In the second phase, the jury found
Dent to be a habitual offender. At the sentencing hearing held on June 22,
2017, the trial court ordered Dent to execute a sixty-five-year sentence for his
murder conviction, and enhanced that sentence by twenty years based on
Dent’s habitual offender Count. The trial court also sentenced Dent to a
consecutive sentence of two and one-half years for his Level 6 felony altering
the scene of death of a person.
[14] Dent now appeals. Additional facts will be provided as necessary.
DISCUSSION AND DECISION
[15] Dent claims that the evidence is insufficient to sustain his conviction for murder
and altering the scene of death. When reviewing the sufficiency of the evidence
needed to support a criminal conviction, we neither reweigh evidence nor judge
witness credibility. Bailey v. State, 907 N.E.2d 1003, 1005 (Ind. 2009). “We
consider only the evidence supporting the judgment and any reasonable
inferences that can be drawn from such evidence.” Id. We will affirm 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. Id.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 02A05-1707-CR-1615 | December 12, 2017 Page 9 of 13
[16] Indiana Code section 35-42-1-1(1) provides that “[a] person who: (1) knowingly
or intentionally kills another human being . . . commits murder, a felony.” A
person engages in conduct knowingly when, at the time he engages in the
conduct, he is aware of a high probability that he is doing so. I.C. § 35-41-2-
2(b). A murder conviction may be sustained on circumstantial evidence alone.
Sallee v. State, 51 N.E.3d 130, 134 (Ind. 2016). Likewise, a trier of fact may
infer that the requisite intent for a crime exists based solely on circumstantial
evidence: “Knowledge and intent are both mental states and, absent an
admission by the defendant, the trier of fact must resort to the reasonable
inferences from both the direct and circumstantial evidence to determine
whether the defendant has the requisite knowledge or intent to commit the
offense in question.” Stokes v. State, 922 N.E.2d 758, 764 (Ind. Ct. App. 2010).
[17] Dent first contends that his trip to Mexico was not an admission of guilt; rather,
he claims that the tour was a “demonstration of family loyalty and [an]
attempt” for Jeana and him “to reunite with their father” whom they had not
seen in thirty years. (Appellant’s Br. p. 16). Dent also argues that he
voluntarily returned to the United States in April of 2015, without any coercion
from law enforcement authorities. Contrary to Dent’s arguments, our supreme
court has determined that “[e]vidence of flight may be considered as
circumstantial evidence of consciousness of guilt.” See Myers v. State, 27 N.E.3d
1069, 1077 (Ind. 2015).
[18] In a twenty-four-hour drive to Mexico, Dent did not mention that he was dating
Fecht, and he requested Jeana not to disclose that he was indefinitely staying in
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 02A05-1707-CR-1615 | December 12, 2017 Page 10 of 13
Mexico. Jeana learned that Dent had been seeing Fecht after returning to
Indiana when she saw Dent’s text to Fecht asking her if she wanted him to tie
her up. The Facebook post with both Dent’s and Fecht’s picture declaring
Fecht missing led Jeana to believe that the “girl’s number” in Dent’s phone
saved “under Jess” was Fecht. (Tr. Vol. III, p. 30). After Jeana saw the
Facebook post, she called Dent and asked if he knew Fecht; however, Dent
denied knowing Fecht. At Dent’s trial, Ryson testified that he found it rather
odd that after Dent returned to Indiana from Mexico, Dent stated that he had
not seen Fecht since December of 2014; yet, Fecht had moved in with Dent in
January of 2015. In addition, a FWPD officer who was involved in the
investigation testified that based on his experience, it was common to see
people who have committed crimes return to their homes because that is where
their “roots are. . ., their family, and [they] generally run out of money or places
to stay.” (Tr. Vol. III, p. 104). Taking all the above into consideration, it is
clear that Dent fled to Mexico in an effort to escape prosecution and hinder the
investigations leading into Fecht’s disappearance and murder.
[19] Dent then postulates that “any person burying the body could have
intentionally or accidentally placed [Dent’s] brand of cigarette butts into the
grave site. It was not a reasonable inference for the jury to assume that those
cigarette butts were smoked . . . [while] excavating the grave site.” (Appellant’s
Br. p. 17). Additionally, he contends that it would be unreasonable to draw an
inference that the presence of his DNA on Fecht’s vaginal speculum and under
Fecht’s left-hand fingernail was deposited at the time of the murder. Dent
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 02A05-1707-CR-1615 | December 12, 2017 Page 11 of 13
argues that the only reasonable inference that the jury could have drawn was
that Fecht’s death was an accident because he was into “kinky types of sex such
as ball gags.” (Appellant’s Br. p. 18). Dent’s arguments are a request for this
court to usurp the province of the jury and reweigh the evidence, which it will
not do. See Bailey, 907 N.E.2d at 1005.
[20] As noted, Dent disclosed several disconcerting statements to Brian, Jeana, and
others that he fancied the idea of killing and having sex with a woman’s corpse.
When Fecht was extracted from the hole in Dent’s basment, she had a French
maid lingerie costume, there was a scarf wrapped around her neck, there were
bruises around her nose and mouth (which a pathologist testified at Dent’s trial
were consistent with a person applying pressure on the mouth and nose of a
victim in order to suffocate and hasten a victim’s death), and Dent’s DNA was
inside Fecht’s vagina and under Fecht’s left-hand fingernail. Most significant is
that Fecht’s body was discovered buried in the basement of Dent’s home
shortly after Fecht had moved in with him. Additionally, shortly after arriving
home from Mexico, Brian and Jeana found a shovel in their home which they
believed was Dent’s. That shovel could have possibly been used to bury Fecht.
The mentioned evidence does not show that Fecht’s death was the result of
‘kinky sex’ that had an unfortunate ending, rather, Dent lived his fantasy. Dent
brutally murdered Fecht by tightly wrapping a scarf around Fecht’s neck and
strangling her. Here, we conclude that there was sufficient circumstantial
evidence to support Dent’s murder conviction.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 02A05-1707-CR-1615 | December 12, 2017 Page 12 of 13
[21] Lastly, Dent contends that his conviction for Level 6 felony altering the scene of
death is unsupported by the evidence. To convict Dent of altering the scene of
a death, the State was required to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that: (1)
Dent (2) with the intent to hinder a criminal investigation (3) and without the
permission of the coroner or a law enforcement officer (4) knowingly or
intentionally (5) altered (6) Fecht’s scene of death (7) after Fecht died from
violence and/or in an apparently suspicious, unusual, or unnatural manner.
I.C. § 36-2-14-17. The record reveals that Fecht died of asphyxia due to
strangulation and suffocation. Dent then dug a hole in his basement and buried
Fecht. Officer Wilcox, who recovered Fecht’s body in the basement stated that
Fecht’s legs “had been folded up onto her chest and her feet were actually
crossed and pointing straight downwards, so she was folded up and inside this
hole.” (Tr. Vol. III, p. 193). In light of the foregoing, we hold that there was
sufficient evidence to support Dent’s conviction for altering the scene of death.
CONCLUSION
[22] Based on the above, we conclude that there was sufficient evidence beyond a
reasonable doubt to sustain Dent’s conviction for murder and altering the scene
of death.
[23] Affirmed.
[24] Baker, J. and Brown, J. concur
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 02A05-1707-CR-1615 | December 12, 2017 Page 13 of 13