John A. Bridges, Jr. v. State of Indiana (mem. dec.) ( 2016 )

MEMORANDUM DECISION
Pursuant to Ind. Appellate Rule 65(D), FILED
this Memorandum Decision shall not be Apr 20 2016, 8:34 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
Mark A. Thoma Gregory F. Zoeller
Deputy Public Defender Attorney General of Indiana
Leonard, Hammond, Thoma & Terrill
Fort Wayne, Indiana Paula J. Beller
Deputy Attorney General
Indianapolis, Indiana
IN THE
COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA
John A. Bridges, Jr., April 20, 2016
Appellant-Defendant, Court of Appeals Case No.
02A04-1507-CR-1046
v. Appeal from the Allen Superior
Court
State of Indiana, The Honorable Wendy W. Davis
Appellee-Plaintiff. Trial Court Cause No.
02D04-1502-F2-5
May, Judge.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 02A04-1507-CR-1046 | April 20, 2016 Page 1 of 8
[1] John A. Bridges appeals his convictions of the following offenses: 1 Count I,
dealing in cocaine or narcotic drug, a Level 2 felony; 2 Count II, dealing in
cocaine or narcotic drug, a Level 4 felony; 3 Count IV, dealing in cocaine or
narcotic drug, a Level 5 felony; 4 and Count V, dealing in cocaine or narcotic
drug, a Level 5 felony. 5 Bridges argues the evidence was insufficient to convict
him. We affirm.
Facts and Procedural History
[2] On January 20, 2015, Emily Begnene made a controlled buy of heroin. She
was acting as a confidential informant and was supervised by Detective Shane
Heath of the Fort Wayne Police Department’s Vice and Narcotics Division.
Police drove Begnene to 3025 Plaza, Allen County. Begnene met Bridges and
purchased over a gram of heroin from him. Bridges’ girlfriend, Yolanda
McGee, was present during the sale. The heroin purchased was a brown
powdery substance.
[3] On January 30, 2015, Begnene made a second controlled buy of heroin, again
supervised by Detective Heath. Police drove Begnene to meet Bridges at 814
1
Bridges was also charged with possession of a firearm and dealing in marijuana. The State dismissed the
firearm charge, and Bridges admitted he was guilty of dealing in marijuana.
2
Ind. Code § 35-48-4-1 (2014).
3
Ind. Code § 35-48-4-1(c) (2014).
4
Ind. Code § 35-48-4-1(a)(1) (2014).
5
Ind. Code § 35-48-4-1(a)(1) (2014).
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 02A04-1507-CR-1046 | April 20, 2016 Page 2 of 8
Lake Avenue, Apartment 3, Allen County, where Bridges and McGee resided.
McGee was also present during this controlled buy. The heroin purchased was
a grayish-blue substance. After this buy, police brought Begnene back to the
station, where she identified Bridges in a photo array as the person from whom
she had purchased heroin on both occasions.
[4] Based on the controlled buys, Detective Heath obtained a search warrant to
search Bridges’ apartment at 814 Lake Avenue. Bridges and McGee lived at
the apartment, but were not listed on the lease. The legal tenant was Christina
Sims, who allowed Bridges to live at the apartment in exchange for drugs and
rent payment.
[5] On February 3, 2015, Fort Wayne police executed the search warrant. After
police breached the door, Bridges and McGee exited the apartment. Bridges
was wearing only boxer shorts, so he asked Detective Heath to bring him his
pants from a chair in the living room. Detective Heath found Bridges’ wallet,
identification, and $1,300.00 in cash in the pants’ pocket. On the same chair,
police discovered a size 5X hoodie jacket, which was proportional to the size of
Bridges’ pants. Police found in the pocket of the jacket a baggie containing
substances determined to be cocaine and heroin. The drugs were packaged in a
manner common for distribution.
[6] The search also uncovered other incriminating items. A container of plastic
baggies and a scale that tested positive for cocaine residue were found in a desk
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 02A04-1507-CR-1046 | April 20, 2016 Page 3 of 8
drawer. 6 Three clear plastic baggies were found with the corners removed.
Detectives found a total of 90.8 grams of marijuana in a baggie in the bathroom
toilet bowl and in a jar beside the chair where the other drugs and clothing were
found. A loaded firearm was found under the mattress in the bedroom where
Bridges had been sleeping. Detective Jamie Masters found a smartphone with a
telephone number corresponding to the number Begnene had called to set up
both controlled buys from Bridges.
[7] On February 9, 2015, the State charged Bridges with Count I, dealing in
cocaine or narcotic drug, a Level 2 felony; Count II, dealing in cocaine or
narcotic drug, a Level 4 felony; Count III, unlawful possession of a firearm by
serious violent felon, a Level 4 felony; 7 Count IV, dealing in cocaine or narcotic
drug, a Level 5 felony; Count V, dealing in cocaine or narcotic drug, a Level 5
felony; and Count VI, dealing in marijuana, hash oil or hashish, a Level 6
felony. 8
[8] A bench trial was held on June 16 and 17, 2015. The State dismissed the
possession of a firearm charge. During closing argument, Bridges admitted he
was guilty of dealing in marijuana. The trial court found Bridges guilty of the
6
At trial, Detective Tina Blackburn testified to the significance of the baggies and the scale found in the desk
drawer, indicating it is common for scales to be used to weigh drugs before packaging and for drugs to be
packaged in plastic baggies.
7
Ind. Code § 35-47-4-5 (2014).
8
Ind. Code § 35-48-4-10 (2014).
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 02A04-1507-CR-1046 | April 20, 2016 Page 4 of 8
remaining Counts and sentenced Bridges to a total of twenty years of
incarceration.
Discussion and Decision
[9] Bridges argues the evidence is insufficient to support his convictions for two
reasons. First, he challenges Begnene’s credibility and the validity of her
testimony regarding the two controlled buys. Second, he claims the evidence of
the heroin and cocaine found in the apartment was “circumstantial at best” and
“simply too tenuous” to support his other two convictions. (Appellant’s Br. at
13.) The evidence is sufficient to support all of his convictions.
[10] When reviewing sufficiency of evidence to support a conviction, we consider
only the probative evidence and reasonable inferences supporting the court’s
decision. Drane v. State, 867 N.E.2d 144, 146 (Ind. 2007). We affirm the
judgment unless no reasonable trier of fact could find the elements of the crime
proven beyond a reasonable doubt. Id. Evidence need not overcome every
reasonable hypothesis of innocence and is sufficient if reasonable inferences
may be drawn from it to support the conviction. Id. at 147. We do not reweigh
the evidence or judge the credibility of witnesses. It is the fact-finder’s role, not
that of this court, to assess witness credibility and weigh the evidence to
determine whether it is sufficient to support a conviction. Id. at 146.
Dealing Convictions for Sales to Begnene
[11] Bridges maintains that he “did not knowingly or intentionally deliver heroin to
the confidential informant on January 20th or 30th, 2015 . . . .” (Br. of Appellant
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 02A04-1507-CR-1046 | April 20, 2016 Page 5 of 8
at 17.) To convict Bridges, the State was required to prove Bridges delivered
heroin to Begnene on those two dates. See Ind. Code § 35-48-4-1(a)(1).
[12] Bridges challenges Begnene’s credibility. At Bridges’ bench trial, the trial court
had the opportunity to observe Begnene testify under direct and cross
examination. The court noted it had presided over many cases involving
confidential informants and explicitly found Begnene was credible. Our
standard of review prohibits us from reassessing the court’s determination. See
Drane, 867 N.E.2d at 146 (appellate court does not reassess witness credibility).
[13] There was sufficient evidence to convict Bridges of Counts IV and V, dealing in
cocaine or a narcotic drug as Level 5 felonies. He asserts “it is reasonable to
infer that McGee, and not Bridges, could have delivered the heroin to
Begnene.” (Br. of Appellant at 17.) The State presented ample evidence to the
contrary and we may not reweigh it. Begnene testified Bridges was the man
from whom she purchased heroin during both controlled buys. Furthermore,
she identified Bridges from a photo array as the man who sold her heroin.
“[T]he sole uncorroborated testimony of the informant-buyer is sufficient to
convict . . . .” Hudson v. State, 462 N.E.2d 1077, 1083 (Ind. Ct. App. 1984).
Dealing Convictions for Drugs in Hoodie
[14] In order to convict Bridges of Count I, dealing in cocaine or other narcotic
drug, a Level 2 felony, the State was required to prove that Bridges knowingly
or intentionally possessed with the intent to deliver cocaine in the amount of
ten (10) grams or more. See Ind. Code § 35-48-4-1(e). To convict Bridges of
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 02A04-1507-CR-1046 | April 20, 2016 Page 6 of 8
Count II, dealing in cocaine or other narcotic drug, a Level 4 felony, the State
was required to prove that Bridges knowingly or intentionally possessed with
the intent to deliver heroin in an amount between one and five grams. See Ind.
Code § 35-48-4-1(c).
[15] Bridges maintains that he “did not knowingly or intentionally . . . possessed
[sic] cocaine or heroin on February 3, 2015.” (Br. of Appellant at 17.) He
argues that while the hoodie jacket containing the cocaine and heroin were
found near his pants, there was “no evidence introduced to tie the hoodie or the
drugs found in it to Mr. Bridges, no DNA, no hair samples, the size of the
hoodie, compared to Mr. Bridges, and no fingerprints on the plastic bags
containing the drugs.” (Id. at 13.)
[16] We acknowledge “[t]he mere presence at the scene of a crime is insufficient to
sustain a conviction.” Hunter v. State, 578 N.E.2d 353, 358 (Ind. 1991), reh’g
denied. “However, presence at the scene connected with other facts and
circumstances tending to show participation will support a conviction.” Id.
Here, when the search warrant was executed, Bridges directed the police to a
chair in the living room to retrieve his pants. Detective Heath found $1,300.00
in cash in Bridges’ pants, yet Bridges said he was unemployed at the time. On
the same chair, a size 5X hoodie jacket proportional to the size of the pants was
found. The jacket pocket contained cocaine and the same two types of heroin
that Begnene previously purchased from Bridges. Other paraphernalia
indicative of distribution were also found in the apartment. Bridges’ presence at
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 02A04-1507-CR-1046 | April 20, 2016 Page 7 of 8
the apartment, together with Begnene’s testimony and the discovery of the
phone used to set up the drug sales, is enough to support Bridges’ convictions.
[17] Bridges invites us to speculate that “the hoodie and the drugs could have
belonged to the actual legal tenant of the apartment – Christina Sims.” (Br. of
Appellant at 18.) This is merely an invitation to reinterpret and reweigh the
evidence. See Sharp v. State, 42 N.E.3d 512, 514 (Ind. 2015) (court is forbidden
from reweighing evidence). Our role is not to consider other reasonable
inferences that could have been drawn from the evidence. See Drane, 867
N.E.2d at 146. Rather, when reviewing the sufficiency of the evidence to
support a conviction, we consider “only the probative evidence and reasonable
inferences supporting the [conviction].” Drane, 867 N.E.2d at 146 (emphasis in
original). The evidence presented and the reasonable inferences therefrom
support Bridges’ convictions for Counts I and II.
Conclusion
[18] There is sufficient evidence to support Bridges’ convictions for dealing in
cocaine or narcotic drugs. We affirm.
[19] Affirmed.
Najam, J., and Riley, J., concur.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 02A04-1507-CR-1046 | April 20, 2016 Page 8 of 8