Leandale Glenn v. State of Indiana (mem. dec.) ( 2016 )

MEMORANDUM DECISION
Pursuant to Ind. Appellate Rule 65(D),
this Memorandum Decision shall not be
FILED
regarded as precedent or cited before any Jun 10 2016, 8:59 am
court except for the purpose of establishing CLERK
Indiana Supreme Court
the defense of res judicata, collateral Court of Appeals
and Tax Court
estoppel, or the law of the case.
ATTORNEY FOR APPELLANT ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE
Kevin Wild Gregory F. Zoeller
Indianapolis, Indiana Attorney General of Indiana
Larry D. Allen
Deputy Attorney General
Indianapolis, Indiana
IN THE
COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA
Leandale Glenn, June 10, 2016
Appellant-Defendant, Court of Appeals Case No.
49A05-1512-CR-2105
v. Appeal from the Marion Superior
Court
State of Indiana, The Honorable Barbara Crawford,
Appellee-Plaintiff. Judge
Trial Court Cause No.
49G09-1412-F6-55420
Robb, Judge.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 49A05-1512-CR-2105 | June 10, 2016 Page 1 of 5
Case Summary and Issue
[1] Following a bench trial, Leandale Glenn was convicted of theft as a Level 6
felony. Glenn appeals, raising the sole issue of whether the evidence is
sufficient to support his conviction. Concluding the evidence is sufficient, we
affirm.
Facts and Procedural History
[2] On December 17, 2014, a Marsh Supermarket loss prevention officer (“LPO”)
was monitoring a security camera feed when he observed Glenn select a jar of
moonshine and remove the jar’s lid in the middle of the liquor section. Glenn
consumed about three-quarters of the moonshine and returned the jar to the
shelf. He then walked to the front of the store, passed the cash registers, and
entered the restroom. The LPO followed Glenn into the restroom to confront
him about the moonshine. Glenn smelled of alcohol and appeared to be
intoxicated. Glenn admitted he drank the moonshine and could not pay for it,
so the LPO called the police.
[3] The State charged Glenn with theft with a prior conviction, a Level 6 felony.
At the conclusion of a bench trial, the trial court found Glenn guilty as charged.
The trial court sentenced Glenn to 545 days, with 180 days served in
community corrections and 365 days suspended to probation. This appeal
followed.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 49A05-1512-CR-2105 | June 10, 2016 Page 2 of 5
Discussion and Decision
I. Standard of Review
[4] In reviewing the sufficiency of the evidence to support a conviction, we neither
reweigh the evidence nor judge the credibility of witnesses. Willis v. State, 27
N.E.3d 1065, 1066 (Ind. 2015). We consider only the evidence supporting the
judgment and any reasonable inferences drawn therefrom. Id. We will affirm
the conviction “if there is substantial evidence of probative value supporting
each element of the crime from which a reasonable trier of fact could have
found the defendant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.” Walker v. State, 998
N.E.2d 724, 726 (Ind. 2013) (citation omitted). A theft conviction may be
sustained by circumstantial evidence alone “if that circumstantial evidence
supports a reasonable inference of guilt.” Hayworth v. State, 798 N.E.2d 503,
507 (Ind. Ct. App. 2003).
II. Sufficiency of Evidence
[5] A person commits theft when he “knowingly or intentionally exerts
unauthorized control over property of another person, with intent to deprive the
other person of any part of its value or use.” Ind. Code § 35-43-4-2(a). The
offense is a Level 6 felony if the person has a prior unrelated conviction for theft
or criminal conversion. Ind. Code § 35-43-4-2(a)(1)(C). Glenn argues the
evidence is insufficient to support his conviction because the State failed to
prove the moonshine was the property of another or that his control over it was
unauthorized. We disagree.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 49A05-1512-CR-2105 | June 10, 2016 Page 3 of 5
[6] Glenn argues the State failed to establish the moonshine was the property of
another because there was no evidence disproving the possibility that Glenn
carried the jar into the store. We decline his invitation to reweigh the evidence.
The LPO testified he observed Glenn remove the jar of moonshine from a shelf
inside the store and then return the jar to the shelf once he consumed most of its
contents. This testimony is sufficient evidence from which the trial court could
reasonably infer the moonshine belonged to Marsh.
[7] Glenn further argues the State failed to prove his control was unauthorized
because the LPO “could not possibly have known” whether any of Marsh’s
other employees gave Glenn permission to drink the moonshine. Brief of
Appellant at 10. “Unauthorized” control refers to control that is “without the
other person’s consent” or “in a manner or to an extent other than that to which
the other person has consented.” Ind. Code § 35-43-4-1(b)(1), (2). The LPO
observed Glenn drink the moonshine and then return the mostly empty jar to
the shelf. When the LPO confronted Glenn, Glenn admitted he drank the
moonshine and stated he could not pay for it. At trial, the LPO recounted this
sequence of events and testified Glenn consumed the moonshine without
Marsh’s permission. The LPO’s testimony is sufficient evidence from which
the trial court could reasonably infer Glenn’s control of the moonshine was
“unauthorized.” Glenn’s statement that he could not pay for the moonshine
would make no sense if he had acted with the store’s permission, and it is
reasonable to infer Marsh did not give Glenn permission to guzzle the
moonshine in the middle of the liquor section without paying for it. Glenn’s
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 49A05-1512-CR-2105 | June 10, 2016 Page 4 of 5
argument to the contrary is again nothing more than a request for this court to
reweigh the evidence.
Conclusion
[8] The evidence is sufficient to support Glenn’s conviction for theft. We therefore
affirm.
[9] Affirmed.
Najam, J., and Crone, J., concur.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 49A05-1512-CR-2105 | June 10, 2016 Page 5 of 5