Tenaya Lee v. State of Indiana (mem. dec.) ( 2018 )

MEMORANDUM DECISION
FILED
Pursuant to Ind. Appellate Rule 65(D),
this Memorandum Decision shall not be Jun 14 2018, 7:13 am
regarded as precedent or cited before any CLERK
Indiana Supreme Court
court except for the purpose of establishing Court of Appeals
and Tax Court
the defense of res judicata, collateral
estoppel, or the law of the case.
ATTORNEY FOR APPELLANT ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE
Timothy J. Burns Curtis T. Hill, Jr.
Indianapolis, Indiana Attorney General of Indiana
J.T. Whitehead
Deputy Attorney General
Indianapolis, Indiana
IN THE
COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA
Tenaya Lee, June 14, 2018
Appellant-Defendant, Court of Appeals Case No.
18A-CR-64
v. Appeal from the Marion Superior
Court
State of Indiana, The Honorable Steven J. Rubick,
Appellee-Plaintiff Magistrate
Trial Court Cause No.
49G07-1608-CM-30037
Baker, Judge.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 18A-CR-64 | June 14, 2018 Page 1 of 4
[1] Tenaya Lee appeals her conviction for Class A Misdemeanor Criminal
Mischief,1 arguing that the evidence was insufficient to support her conviction.
Finding the evidence sufficient, we affirm.
[2] On July 8, 2016, Erin Cannon was working at a nail salon in Marion County.
At some point, Lee entered the salon, and Cannon told her that she was not
allowed inside. Cannon had known Lee for four or five years; Lee had been
Cannon’s client. Cannon followed Lee outside and called the police.
[3] Meanwhile, Jesse Dickerson was sitting in his vehicle, which was parked in
front of Cannon’s vehicle in the parking lot, waiting for his wife, who was in
the salon. Dickerson saw Lee and two other women key Cannon’s vehicle and
puncture its tires for approximately four to five minutes. Dickerson observed
Lee perform a “majority” of the acts of vandalism. Tr. Vol. II p. 27. While
Cannon was on the phone with the police, Dickerson told her that her vehicle
had been vandalized. Cannon then approached her vehicle and saw that it had
key marks and that two of the tires were slashed. Within a few minutes of
looking at her vehicle, Cannon received a video phone call from Lee in which
Lee said, “Haha, you have to get a new paint job now.” Id. at 10. Cannon’s
vehicle suffered damage totaling approximately $3200.
[4] On August 9, 2016, the State charged Lee with Class A misdemeanor criminal
mischief. On November 2, 2017, a bench trial took place, and on November
1
Ind. Code § 35-43-1-2(a)(1).
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 18A-CR-64 | June 14, 2018 Page 2 of 4
16, 2017, the trial court found Lee guilty as charged. During a December 14,
2017, sentencing hearing, the trial court sentenced Lee to 365 days, with 60
days executed, and 305 days suspended to probation. Lee now appeals.
[5] Lee’s sole argument is that the evidence was insufficient to support her
conviction. Specifically, she contends that the evidence did not show that she
was the person who vandalized Cannon’s vehicle. When considering a
challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence, we do not reweigh the evidence or
judge the credibility of the witnesses. McHenry v. State, 820 N.E.2d 124, 126
(Ind. 2005). We will affirm if the probative evidence and the reasonable
inferences drawn therefrom could have allowed a reasonable jury to find the
defendant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. Id.[6] To prove that Lee committed Class A misdemeanor criminal mischief, the State
was required to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Lee recklessly,
knowingly, or intentionally damaged or defaced Cannon’s property without
Cannon’s consent, and that the monetary loss was at least $750 but less than
$50,000. I.C. § 35-43-1-2(a)(1). Lee does not dispute that Cannon’s vehicle was
vandalized or that the monetary loss was in the listed range. Rather, she argues
that the State failed to prove that she was the one who vandalized the vehicle.
Generally, the “[e]lements of offenses and identity may be established entirely
by circumstantial evidence and logical inferences drawn therefrom.”
Bustamante v. State, 557 N.E.2d 1313, 1317 (Ind. 1990).
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 18A-CR-64 | June 14, 2018 Page 3 of 4
[7] Here, the evidence shows that Dickerson witnessed the vandalization and
testified that Lee was responsible for most of the damage done to Cannon’s
vehicle. Dickerson testified that he saw Lee key the vehicle and puncture the
tires. The evidence also shows that, shortly after the offense, Lee called
Cannon through a video phone call and said, “Haha, you have to get a new
paint job now.” Tr. Vol. II p. 10. Cannon recognized Lee because she used to
be a client, and Lee’s video phone call corroborates Dickerson’s testimony.
Under these facts and circumstances, a reasonable factfinder could conclude
that it was Lee who vandalized Cannon’s vehicle. Lee’s argument is
unavailing.
[8] The judgment of the trial court is affirmed.
Kirsch, J., and Bradford, J., concur.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 18A-CR-64 | June 14, 2018 Page 4 of 4