Martin A. Davis, Jr. v. State of Indiana (mem. dec.) ( 2017 )

MEMORANDUM DECISION
Pursuant to Ind. Appellate Rule 65(D),
this Memorandum Decision shall not be
FILED
regarded as precedent or cited before any Mar 02 2017, 9:34 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
Larry D. Newman Curtis T. Hill, Jr.
Noblesville, Indiana Attorney General of Indiana
Christina D. Pace
Deputy Attorney General
Indianapolis, Indiana
IN THE
COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA
Martin A. Davis, Jr., March 2, 2017
Appellant-Defendant, Court of Appeals Case No.
29A02-1608-CR-1861
v. Appeal from the Hamilton
Superior Court
State of Indiana, The Honorable Gail Bardach,
Appellee-Plaintiff Judge
Trial Court Cause No.
29D06-1507-F6-6080
Altice, Judge.
Case Summary
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 29A02-1608-CR-1861 | March 2, 2017 Page 1 of 6
[1] Following a jury trial, Martin A. Davis, Jr. was convicted of Level 6 felony
theft and Class B misdemeanor criminal mischief. On appeal, Davis argues
that the State presented insufficient evidence to support his criminal mischief
conviction.
[2] We affirm.
Facts & Procedural History
[3] At the time relevant to this appeal, James Burch owned several residential
properties, including a home on Beechwood Drive in Hamilton County. Burch
employed David Ward and Jeanette Newkirk to assist him with moving
furniture and performing maintenance work and general upkeep at his
properties. Burch sometimes hired additional people to help Ward and
Newkirk with these duties. In January 2015, Burch hired Davis to help Ward
and Newkirk move furniture and other items from one of his properties in
Carmel to the Beechwood Drive house.
[4] At around 9:00 a.m. on February 13, 2015, Ward and Newkirk arrived at the
Beechwood Drive house to do some work. When they arrived, there was a
small pickup truck parked in the driveway and the garage door was open. Both
Ward and Newkirk observed a white blanket in the bed of the truck that
appeared to be covering items. Because the house was unoccupied at the time,
Ward and Newkirk believed something was amiss. Ward told Newkirk to stay
in the car while he investigated. When Ward entered the garage, he saw a
bucket with tools that appeared to be out of place. He then entered the
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 29A02-1608-CR-1861 | March 2, 2017 Page 2 of 6
residence through the garage and saw the back of someone running through the
residence. Ward went down into the basement and saw that the floor was wet
and that the plumbing was damaged.
[5] While Ward was still inside the house, Newkirk saw Davis exit through the
garage door. Davis was “soaking wet” and told Newkirk that Burch had told
him to come over and retrieve a vacuum cleaner, which had already been
placed in the back of the truck. Transcript at 106. Davis then got into the truck
and said “well, I’m leaving” and hurriedly drove away. Id. at 109.
[6] Ward and Newkirk called Burch and told him that the house had been broken
into, and Burch came to the house and called the police. An inspection of the
house revealed that a significant amount of copper piping in the home’s
plumbing and steam heating systems had been removed. As a result, there was
a large amount of water on the basement floor. Various items had also been
stolen. Burch had not given Davis permission to enter the home or to retrieve
the vacuum cleaner or remove any other items. Detective Kija Ireland of the
Hamilton County Sheriff’s Department investigated the incident and, using a
law enforcement website called LeadsOnline, later discovered that Davis had
scrapped copper pipe on February 15, 2015.
[7] As a result of these events, the State charged Davis with criminal mischief as a
Class B misdemeanor and theft elevated from a Class A misdemeanor to a
Level 6 felony based on a prior unrelated theft conviction. A bifurcated jury
trial was held on June 7, 2016, and Davis was found guilty of Class A
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 29A02-1608-CR-1861 | March 2, 2017 Page 3 of 6
misdemeanor theft and Class B misdemeanor criminal mischief. Davis then
admitted to having a prior unrelated theft conviction as necessary to support the
elevation of his theft conviction to a Level 6 felony. On the theft conviction,
the trial court sentenced Davis to 910 days, with 545 days suspended and 365
days on probation. For the criminal mischief conviction, the trial court
imposed a 180-day suspended sentence. Davis now appeals.
Discussion & Decision
[8] Davis argues that the State presented insufficient evidence to support his
criminal mischief conviction. In reviewing a challenge to the sufficiency of the
evidence, we neither reweigh the evidence nor judge the credibility of witnesses.
Atteberry v. State, 911 N.E.2d 601, 609 (Ind. Ct. App. 2009). Instead, we
consider only the evidence supporting the conviction and the reasonable
inferences flowing therefrom. Id. If there is substantial evidence of probative
value from which a reasonable trier of fact could have drawn the conclusion
that the defendant was guilty of the crime charged beyond a reasonable doubt,
the judgment will not be disturbed. Baumgartner v. State, 891 N.E.2d 1131, 1137
(Ind. Ct. App. 2008). It is not necessary that the evidence overcome every
reasonable hypothesis of innocence; rather, the evidence is sufficient if an
inference may reasonably be drawn from it to support the conviction. Drane v.
State, 867 N.E.2d 144, 147 (Ind. 2007). “A verdict may be sustained based on
circumstantial evidence alone if that circumstantial evidence supports a
reasonable inference of guilt.” Maul v. State, 731 N.E.2d 438, 439 (Ind. 2000).
Although presence at a crime scene alone is insufficient to sustain a conviction,
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 29A02-1608-CR-1861 | March 2, 2017 Page 4 of 6
presence combined with other facts and circumstances, including the
defendant’s course of conduct before, during, and after the offense, may raise a
reasonable inference of guilt. Id.[9] To support Davis’s conviction for Class B misdemeanor criminal mischief, the
State was required to prove that Davis recklessly, knowingly, or intentionally
damaged or defaced Burch’s property without Burch’s permission. See Ind.
Code § 35-43-1-2. On appeal, Davis does not dispute that someone
intentionally damaged Burch’s property by cutting many copper pipes inside the
Beechwood Drive house. Instead, he argues that the State presented
insufficient evidence to establish that he was the person who did so.
[10] It was established that Davis was familiar with the Beechwood Drive house
through his previous work for Burch, and that Newkirk and Ward were familiar
with Davis because they had worked alongside him. It was further established
that the plumbing and heating systems at the Beechwood Drive house were
undamaged in the days leading up to February 13, 2015, and that Burch had
not given Davis permission to enter the house on that date or to remove any of
its contents. Although no one saw Davis in the process of removing copper
pipes from the house, both Ward and Newkirk saw Davis’s truck outside the
house and saw a white blanket covering items in the back of the truck. Newkirk
also saw Davis come out of the house “soaking wet,” and Davis lied to her
about having permission to remove a vacuum cleaner from the house before
hurriedly driving away. Transcript at 106. An inspection of the house revealed
water on the basement floor as a result of pipes to the plumbing and steam
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 29A02-1608-CR-1861 | March 2, 2017 Page 5 of 6
heating systems being cut. Moreover, two days after this incident, Davis sold
copper pipes to a scrap yard. This evidence was more than sufficient to support
his conviction for Class B misdemeanor criminal mischief.
[11] Judgment affirmed.
[12] Riley, J. and Crone, J., concur.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 29A02-1608-CR-1861 | March 2, 2017 Page 6 of 6