Michael Parrish v. State of Indiana (mem. dec.) ( 2016 )

MEMORANDUM DECISION
FILED
Pursuant to Ind. Appellate Rule 65(D), Nov 17 2016, 8:34 am
this Memorandum Decision shall not be
CLERK
regarded as precedent or cited before any Indiana Supreme Court
Court of Appeals
court except for the purpose of establishing and Tax Court
the defense of res judicata, collateral
estoppel, or the law of the case.
ATTORNEY FOR APPELLANT ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE
Kevin Wild Gregory F. Zoeller
Indianapolis, Indiana Attorney General of Indiana
George P. Sherman
Deputy Attorney General
Indianapolis, Indiana
IN THE
COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA
Michael Parrish, November 17, 2016
Appellant-Defendant, Court of Appeals Case No.
49A05-1604-CR-794
v. Appeal from the Marion Superior
Court
State of Indiana, The Honorable Kurt M. Eisgruber,
Appellee-Plaintiff Judge
Trial Court Cause No.
49G01-1403-FA-11089
Crone, Judge.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 49A05-1604-CR-794| November 17, 2016 Page 1 of 7
Case Summary
[1] Michael Parrish appeals his convictions for class A felony burglary and two
counts of class B felony criminal deviate conduct following a bench trial. He
argues that the evidence is insufficient to support his convictions. Concluding
that the evidence is sufficient, we affirm.
Facts and Procedural History
[2] One morning in February 2014, D.K.P. was at her home alone asleep in bed,
when she heard a knock on the door. D.K.P. got up to answer the door and
saw Parrish standing outside wearing a black snowsuit. She said, “Hi,” and
“the next thing [she knew she] was pushed up against the wall with a knife to
[her] throat.” Tr. at 9. Parrish told her that if she screamed, he would kill her.
Parrish grabbed D.K.P. by the hair and made her walk with him into each
room in the house to make sure that no one else was there. Parrish continued
to hold the knife, but D.K.P. was not always aware of where the knife was and
did not always feel it touching her body. Id. at 46. When they were finished
looking in the bedrooms, he stopped her near a television and rubbed her in the
“vaginal area” over the sweatpants that she was wearing. Id. at 12. He pushed
his fingers into her vagina and asked her if she “had a tight pussy.” Id. at 13.
[3] D.K.P heard Parrish talking on a phone and telling someone they could come
inside. Still holding D.K.P. by the hair, Parrish directed her to her bedroom.
When he discovered that she had two dogs, he became angry. He released
D.K.P. so that she could put one of her dogs into a bedroom closet. The other
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 49A05-1604-CR-794| November 17, 2016 Page 2 of 7
dog hid under a couch. Parrish continued to hold D.K.P. while he and an
accomplice looked through the drawers of the nightstands, and Parrish made
D.K.P. give him the money from her wallet. Parrish took D.K.P. to another
bedroom, bent her over, and pushed her head to the floor. He pulled down her
pants and placed his fingers inside her vagina. He also inserted something into
her anus. Then he tied her up with a cord, kicked her in the ribs a couple times,
and punched her in the face. He left, and D.K.P. heard the sound of people
running out of the house. One of Parrish’s accomplices saw Parrish stick his
finger under another accomplice’s nose and heard him make “a reference to the
woman’s smell.” Id. at 85.
[4] Eventually, D.K.P. was able to escape and call 911 from a neighbor’s home.
Many of D.K.P.’s possessions were gone, including her large screen television,
phone, iPad, two cameras, guns, laptops, a radio, and various tools. D.K.P.
went to the hospital. She had suffered “some cuts” along “her breast area,”
“bumps on the back of her head,” “ a black eye,” and bruising on the side of her
face. Id. at 38. A medical exam showed that she had three injuries to her
“female genital area” and three fissures to her anus. Id. at 163.
[5] The State charged Parrish with one count of class A felony burglary, two counts
of class B felony robbery, two counts of class B felony criminal confinement,
one count of class C felony battery, one count of class A misdemeanor battery,
one count of class C felony intimidation, and three counts of class A felony
criminal deviate conduct. Following a bench trial, the trial court found Parrish
guilty on all counts and entered judgment of conviction for class A felony
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 49A05-1604-CR-794| November 17, 2016 Page 3 of 7
burglary, class C felony robbery, two counts of class B felony criminal
confinement, two counts of class A misdemeanor battery, one count of class D
felony sexual battery, and two counts of class B felony criminal deviate
conduct. The trial court vacated one count of class B felony robbery and the
count for class C felony intimidation. The trial court sentenced Parrish to an
aggregate term of sixty years. This appeal ensued.
Discussion and Decision
[6] Parrish challenges the sufficiency of the evidence supporting his convictions for
class A felony burglary and two counts of class B felony criminal deviate
conduct. In reviewing a claim of insufficient evidence, we do not reweigh the
evidence or judge the credibility of witnesses, and we consider only the
evidence that supports the judgment and the reasonable inferences arising
therefrom. Bailey v. State, 907 N.E.2d 1003, 1005 (Ind. 2009). “We will affirm
if there is substantial evidence of probative value such that a reasonable trier of
fact could have concluded the defendant was guilty beyond a reasonable
doubt.” Id.
Section 1 – Sufficient evidence supports Parrish’s burglary
conviction.
[7] To convict Parrish of class A felony burglary, the State was required to prove
beyond a reasonable doubt that he, while armed with a deadly weapon, broke
and entered D.K.P.’s home with the intent to commit theft, resulting in bodily
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 49A05-1604-CR-794| November 17, 2016 Page 4 of 7
injury. See Appellant’s App. at 51; Ind. Code § 35-43-2-1. Parrish’s sole
argument is that the State failed to prove the element of breaking and entering.
[8] “‘Using even the slightest force to gain unauthorized entry satisfies the breaking
element of the crime.’” Hall v. State, 870 N.E.2d 449, 462-63 (Ind. Ct. App.
2007) (quoting Davis v. State, 770 N.E.2d 319, 322 (Ind. 2002)), trans. denied. As
another panel of this Court has noted,
While our Indiana Supreme Court has held “[s]ome physical
movement of a structural impediment is necessary to support a
finding of breaking,” Smith v. State, 535 N.E.2d 117, 118 (Ind.
1989), it has also held the use of physical force against a victim to
gain entry into a residence was sufficient to prove the element of
“breaking” independent of “conclusive” evidence force was used
to open the residence’s door. Dew v. State, 439 N.E.2d 624, 625
(Ind. 1982).
Jenkins v. State, 34 N.E.3d 258, 261-62 (Ind. Ct. App. 2015), trans. denied.
[9] Here, D.K.P testified that she opened the door and said, “Hi,” and then Parrish
immediately pushed her out of the doorway, pushed her against a wall inside
the house, and held a knife to her throat. This is sufficient evidence to establish
the breaking and entering element of burglary. See Anderson v. State, 37 N.E.3d
972, 975 (Ind. Ct. App. 2015) (concluding that even when victim voluntarily
opens door, rushing that person to gain unauthorized entry into a dwelling is
sufficient evidence of breaking element), trans. denied; Jenkins, 34 N.E.3d at 262
(concluding that evidence showing that when victim opened door to his
apartment, Jenkins pushed another man aside, entered the apartment, and hit
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 49A05-1604-CR-794| November 17, 2016 Page 5 of 7
victim on the head with a bottle and Jenkins’s companion hit victim with a
pistol was sufficient to prove breaking element). Parrish’s argument is merely a
request to reweigh evidence and judge witness credibility, which we must
decline. See Bailey, 907 N.E.2d at 1005.
Section 2 – Sufficient evidence supports Parrish’s criminal
deviate conduct convictions.
[10] To convict Parrish of class B felony criminal deviate conduct, the State was
required to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Parrish knowingly or
intentionally compelled D.K.P. by force or imminent threat of force to perform
or submit to deviate sexual conduct. See Ind. Code § 35-42-4-2(a). The
definition of “deviate sexual conduct” includes an act involving the penetration
of the sex organ or anus of a person by an object. Ind. Code § 35-31.5-2-94.
[11] Parrish contends that the evidence is insufficient to prove that he committed
deviate sexual conduct. He concedes that D.K.P.’s “testimony appears to
provide more than an inference to support” his convictions, but he asserts that
“such an inference is not reasonable in this case, and the mere fact she said it
happened is not sufficient evidence to overcome a practical and physical
impossibility.” Appellant’s Br. at 17. Specifically, Parrish argues that because
he was holding her by the hair and holding the knife the whole time, he did not
have a free hand available to commit the offenses. We disagree.
[12] First, D.K.P.’s testimony alone is sufficient to support Parrish’s convictions.
See Johnson v. State, 837 N.E.2d 209, 214 (Ind. Ct. App. 2005) (“The
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 49A05-1604-CR-794| November 17, 2016 Page 6 of 7
uncorroborated testimony of the victim is sufficient to sustain a criminal
conviction.”), trans. denied (2006). Second, D.K.P.’s testimony is corroborated
by other evidence. One of Parrish’s accomplices testified that after they left the
house, Parrish placed his fingers under someone’s nose and made “a reference
to the woman’s smell.” Tr. at 85. Also, the medical exam showed that D.K.P.
had three injuries to her “female genital area” and three fissures to her anus. Id.
at 163.
[13] Finally, Parrish undercuts his own impossibility argument by asserting that he
“put his hands in her pants prior to leaving the house only because he thought
she was trying to hide something in them, and he did it to get the item which he
stated was a plastic sleeve of pictures and cards.” Appellant’s Br. at 15. If
Parrish was able to do this, then it was not impossible for him to commit the
offenses. Simply put, it is not impossible that Parrish secured the knife for short
periods of time while he was holding D.K.P.’s hair. His argument again is an
invitation to reweigh evidence and judge witness credibility, which we must
decline. See Bailey, 907 N.E.2d at 1005.
[14] Based on the foregoing, we affirm Parrish’s convictions.
[15] Affirmed.
Kirsch, J., and May, J., concur.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 49A05-1604-CR-794| November 17, 2016 Page 7 of 7