James Eubanks v. State of Indiana (mem. dec.) ( 2016 )

MEMORANDUM DECISION
FILED
Pursuant to Ind. Appellate Rule 65(D),
Aug 05 2016, 5:51 am
this Memorandum Decision shall not be
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
Marce Gonzalez, Jr. Gregory F. Zoeller
Dyer, Indiana Attorney General of Indiana
Tyler G. Banks
Deputy Attorney General
Indianapolis, Indiana
IN THE
COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA
James Eubanks, August 5, 2016
Appellant-Defendant, Court of Appeals Case No.
45A03-1512-CR-2347
v. Appeal from the Lake Superior
Court
State of Indiana, The Honorable Salvador Vasquez,
Appellee-Plaintiff Judge
Trial Court Cause No.
45G01-1409-F5-23
Baker, Judge.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 45A03-1512-CR-2347 | August 5, 2016 Page 1 of 6
[1] James Eubanks appeals his conviction for Burglary, a Level 5 felony.1 He
argues that there is insufficient evidence supporting the conviction. Finding the
evidence sufficient, we affirm.
Facts
[2] During the relevant time frame, Robert Mardis owned an unoccupied rental
home in Hammond. In early September 2014, Mardis went to work on the
unoccupied property and saw no damage to the residence’s back door.
[3] About two weeks later, on September 24, Officer Frank Eggers of the
Hammond Police Department received a dispatch call to Mardis’s rental home.
The caller reported “a black male wearing a Comcast type worker vest [that]
went into a residence at the 6433 Van Buren [property] through the back door
and was possibly taking items.” Tr. p. 25. When he arrived at the property,
Officer Eggers observed that a window directly above the back door’s handle
had been broken out, allowing easy access to the door handle and entrance into
the building. He also noticed two other items: a bicycle near the back foyer
area and a bag full of cut copper piping. All of this led Officer Eggers, an
evidence technician, to believe that a crime had occurred. He then attempted to
locate the owner of the property, but was unsuccessful. Predicting that a
suspect would return for the bicycle and bag, Officer Eggers “punctured the rear
1
Ind. Code § 35-43-2-1.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 45A03-1512-CR-2347 | August 5, 2016 Page 2 of 6
tire of the bicycle to make it difficult for that subject or subjects to leave.” Id. at
28. He also took the bag, went inside the residence, and spread the scrap metal
around the residence’s basement. After he exited the residence, Officer Eggers
closed and locked the back door. He then left the scene.
[4] Thirty minutes later, Officer Eggers was dispatched again to the property on a
new report describing similar activity. The caller stated that the same male,
wearing the Comcast vest, was leaving the residence with a garbage can and
was walking down an adjacent alley. When Officer Eggers arrived, he saw that
another policeman, Corporal John Riordan, already had the suspect, later
identified as Eubanks, in custody. Officer Eggers noticed that the garbage can
in Eubanks’s possession held the same scrap metal that the officer had spread
around the residence’s basement. Moreover, Eubanks was carrying with him
the bicycle that Officer Eggers had seen at the property and was also wearing a
Comcast vest.
[5] Eubanks was then arrested and transported to jail by Corporal Riordan. During
the ride, Eubanks asked what charges he was facing. Corporal Riordan told
Eubanks that he was facing a burglary charge; in response, Eubanks stated that
“he didn’t know it was a burglary if the house was abandoned.” Id. at 67. In a
later interview and after being advised of his Miranda2 rights, Eubanks admitted
2
Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 (1966).
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 45A03-1512-CR-2347 | August 5, 2016 Page 3 of 6
to entering the residence and taking scrap metal, but claimed that the back door
was open when he went to the property both times.
[6] On October 31, 2015, the trial court found Eubanks guilty of Level 5 burglary
following a bench trial. After finding Eubanks to be a habitual offender, the
trial court sentenced him to an aggregate term of six years of incarceration.
Eubanks now appeals.
Discussion and Decision
[7] Eubanks argues that there is insufficient evidence supporting the conviction.
When reviewing a claim of insufficient evidence, we do not reweigh the
evidence, nor do we judge the credibility of witnesses. McHenry v. State, 820
N.E.2d 124, 126 (Ind. 2005). Rather, we will affirm a conviction if any
reasonable juror could find the defendant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt
based on the probative evidence and reasonable inferences. Bailey v. State, 907
N.E.2d 1003, 1005 (Ind. 2009) (citing Henley v. State, 881 N.E.2d 639, 652 (Ind.
2008)). To convict Eubanks of Level 5 felony burglary, the State was required
to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that he broke and entered into Mardis’s
building with the intent to commit a felony or theft therein. Ind. Code § 35-43-
2-1.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 45A03-1512-CR-2347 | August 5, 2016 Page 4 of 6
[8] Eubanks asserts that the evidence is insufficient to prove that he broke and
entered the home, as he maintains that the door was open when he entered. 3
The evidence in the record establishes that Eubanks admitted to entering the
home and stealing scrap metal from it. Tr. p. 89–93. Officer Eggers testified
that, thirty minutes before Eubanks entered the home, the officer had closed
and locked the door. When Eubanks was arrested, he had items in his
possession that Officer Eggers had left inside the locked house. And Eubanks’s
description, including the Comcast vest he was wearing, matched the
description of the suspect. Eubanks is asking that we credit his version of
events over the officers’—in other words, he asks us to reweigh the evidence
and reassess witness credibility. We decline to do so. We find that the
evidence readily supports the conviction for burglary.
[9] Eubanks further argues that the incredible dubiosity rule renders the evidence
insufficient. This argument is unavailing. This limited exception recognizes
that, in very rare cases, a witness’s credibility is so untrustworthy and lacking as
to justify reversal on appeal. See Moore v. State, 27 N.E.3d 749, 755 (Ind. 2015).
Notably, our Supreme Court has recently reemphasized that we should only
invoke the incredible dubiosity exception “where a sole witness presents
inherently contradictory testimony which is equivocal or the result of coercion
and there is a complete lack of circumstantial evidence of the appellant’s guilt.” Id.
3
Our Supreme Court has recognized that walking through an open door does not constitute a “breaking,”
which is an element for proving the crime of burglary. E.g., Passwater v. State, 248 Ind. 454, 458, 229 N.E.2d
718, 720 (Ind. 1967).
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 45A03-1512-CR-2347 | August 5, 2016 Page 5 of 6
(emphases in original). Eubanks concedes that the rule does not apply in this
case, as more than one witness testified and there is a wealth of circumstantial
evidence of his guilt. We decline his request to broaden the rule.
[10] The judgment of the trial court is affirmed.
May, J., and Brown, J., concur.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 45A03-1512-CR-2347 | August 5, 2016 Page 6 of 6