Nicholous L. Finton v. State of Indiana (mem. dec.) ( 2019 )

MEMORANDUM DECISION
Pursuant to Ind. Appellate Rule 65(D),
this Memorandum Decision shall not be FILED
regarded as precedent or cited before any Dec 04 2019, 8:40 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
William T. Myers Curtis T. Hill, Jr.
Whitehurst & Myers Attorney General of Indiana
Marion, Indiana Courtney Staton
Deputy Attorney General
Indianapolis, Indiana
IN THE
COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA
Nicholous L. Finton, December 4, 2019
Appellant-Defendant, Court of Appeals Case No.
19A-CR-960
v. Appeal from the Huntington
Superior Court
State of Indiana, The Honorable Jennifer E.
Appellee-Plaintiff. Newton, Judge
Trial Court Cause No.
35D01-1812-F6-310
Riley, Judge.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 19A-CR-960 | December 4, 2019 Page 1 of 8
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
[1] Appellant-Defendant, Nicholous Finton (Finton), appeals his conviction for
possession of methamphetamine, a Level 6 felony, I.C. § 35-48-4-6.1(a);
domestic battery, a Level 6 felony, I.C. § 35-42-2-1.3(b)(1); and possession of
paraphernalia, a Class C misdemeanor, Ind. Code § 35-48-4-8.3(b).
[2] We affirm.
ISSUE
[3] Finton raises one issue on appeal which we restate as: Whether there was
sufficient evidence to support Finton’s two possession convictions beyond a
reasonable doubt.
FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY
[4] Around Thanksgiving of 2018, Finton moved into his girlfriend’s, Casey Fisher
(Fisher), apartment in Huntington, Indiana. On December 26, 2018, at around
2:00 a.m., Finton was searching for his methamphetamine, and “he was
blaming [Fisher] for hiding them because he couldn’t find them.” (Transcript p.
58). Fisher helped him look for the methamphetamine, and she eventually
came across a pipe in the bathroom. Fisher went to bed while Finton went to
the bathroom with the pipe.
[5] When Fisher woke up that afternoon around 3:00 p.m., she noticed that all of
her money and credit cards were missing from her wallet. Fisher went to the
living room and confronted Finton, who was sitting on the couch, and an
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 19A-CR-960 | December 4, 2019 Page 2 of 8
argument ensued. Fisher left the apartment for about an hour to get a fountain
drink, and, when she returned, she informed Finton that he had to move out of
the apartment. Finton became angry, knocked the drink out of Fisher’s hand,
and threw her up against the bedroom wall. Finton then came up behind Fisher
and “put [her] in a choke hold.” (Tr. p. 63). The two eventually fell onto the
bed, and Finton started “pushing [Fisher’s] face into the mattress.” (Tr. p. 64).
After Finton released Fisher from his hold, Fisher went to a neighbor’s home
and called the police.
[6] Fisher was waiting outside the apartment when Officer Darius Hillman (Officer
Hillman) arrived. Officer Hillman knocked on the apartment door and told
Finton to come outside. Finton eventually opened the apartment door and let
Officer Hillman inside. Officer Hillman noticed that Finton was intoxicated
because he was sweating profusely, had dilated pupils, and could not stand still.
Upon entering the apartment, Officer Hillman placed Finton in handcuffs and
conducted a pat down of his person. Officer Hillman then noticed an open tin
with a glass pipe and hollowed-out pen tubes sitting in plain view in the living
room, which prompted Officer Hillman to place Finton in the back of his police
vehicle and ask Fisher for consent to search the apartment. After Fisher signed
a Consent to Search of Premises form, Officer Hillman took pictures of the
living room and Fisher’s injuries. Officer Hillman then collected the glass pipe
and pen tubes with residue on them as evidence, which later tested positive for
methamphetamine. In the bedroom, Officer Hillman looked inside Fisher’s
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 19A-CR-960 | December 4, 2019 Page 3 of 8
dresser drawer and found a foil ball and a hollowed-out pen tube with a residue
on it. Fisher was transported to the hospital and Finton was taken into custody.
[7] On December 27, 2018, the State filed an Information, initially charging Finton
with strangulation, a Level 6 felony; domestic battery with a prior conviction, a
Level 6 felony; and possession of paraphernalia, a Class C misdemeanor. On
February 15, 2019, the State filed another Information, charging Finton with
possession of methamphetamine, a Level 6 felony. On March 7, 2019, a jury
trial was conducted. During the trial, Fisher testified that Finton “usually sat in
the corner of the couch” and was sitting on the couch in the living room when
she confronted him about her missing money and credit cards. (Tr. p. 61).
During her testimony, Fisher also admitted that both she and Finton used the
pipe and the hollowed-out pens, but that Finton used them more. At the close
of the evidence, Finton was found guilty of possession of methamphetamine,
possession of paraphernalia, and domestic battery as a Class A misdemeanor.
Finton admitted to having a prior conviction for domestic battery, enhancing
his battery conviction to a Level 6 Felony. On April 2, 2019, Finton was
sentenced to two years in Indiana Department of Correction and ordered to pay
restitution of $3,395.33 for Fisher’s medical bills.
[8] Finton now appeals. Additional facts will be provided as necessary.
DISCUSSION AND DECISION
[9] Our standard of review with regard to sufficiency claims is well-settled. In
reviewing a sufficiency of the evidence claim, this court does not reweigh the
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 19A-CR-960 | December 4, 2019 Page 4 of 8
evidence or judge the credibility of the witnesses. Agilera v. State, 862 N.E.2d
298, 306 (Ind. Ct. App. 2007) trans. denied. We will consider only the evidence
most favorable to the judgment and the reasonable inferences drawn therefrom
and will affirm if the evidence and those inferences constitute substantial
evidence of probative value to support the judgment. Id. A conviction may be
based upon circumstantial evidence alone. Id. Reversal is appropriate only
when reasonable persons would not be able to form inferences as to each
material element of the offense. Abney v. State, 822 N.E.2d 260, 264 (Ind. Ct.
App. 2005).
[10] Finton asserts that there was insufficient evidence to support his conviction for
possession of methamphetamine and possession of paraphernalia. He bases
this assertion on the incorrect assumption that his charges stemmed from the
paraphernalia and methamphetamine — the foil ball with residue on it — found
in the dresser drawer in the bedroom. For Finton’s conviction, however, the
State relied only on evidence of the living room drugs at trial and in its
argument. These were the only items tested and submitted as evidence during
the trial. Since Finton’s conviction was based on those items, our review is
limited to those items.
[11] A person who, without a valid prescription or order of a practitioner acting in
the course of the practitioner’s professional practice, knowingly or intentionally
possesses methamphetamine (pure or adulterated) commits possession of
methamphetamine, a Level 6 felony. I.C. § 35-48-4-6.1(a). A person who
knowingly or intentionally possesses an instrument, a device, or another object
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 19A-CR-960 | December 4, 2019 Page 5 of 8
that the person intends to use for introducing into the person’s body a
controlled substance commits possession of paraphernalia, a Class C
misdemeanor. I.C. § 35-48-4-8.3(b)(1). Since no paraphernalia or
methamphetamine was found on Finton’s person, the State was required to
establish that Finton had constructive possession of the contraband.
“Constructive possession occurs when a person has: (1) the capability to
maintain dominion and control over the item; and (2) the intent to maintain
dominion and control over it.” Canfield v. State, 128 N.E.3d 563, 572 (Ind.
2019).
[12] The capability element of constructive possession is met when the State shows
that the defendant is able to reduce the contraband to the defendant’s personal
possession. Id. The proof of a possessory interest in the premises on which
illegal drugs are found is adequate to show the capability to maintain dominion
and control over the items in question. Cannon v. State, 99 N.E.3d 274, 279
(Ind. Ct. App. 2018), trans. denied. Finton lived in Fisher’s apartment where the
contraband was found. Therefore, he had access to the contraband and was
able to possess it. This satisfies the capability element.
[13] The intent element of constructive possession is shown by the defendant’s
knowledge of the presence of the contraband. Canfield, 128 N.E.3d at 572.
Knowledge can be demonstrated through exclusive or non-exclusive dominion
and control over the premises that houses the contraband. Id. When, as here,
possession of the premises is non-exclusive, the inference can only be made
through additional circumstances which indicate the knowledge of the presence
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 19A-CR-960 | December 4, 2019 Page 6 of 8
of the contraband and the ability to control it. Id. “These additional
circumstances may include: (1) a defendant’s incriminating statements; (2) a
defendant’s attempting to leave or making furtive gestures; (3) the location of
contraband, [ ] such as drugs, in settings suggesting manufacturing; (4) the
item’s proximity to the defendant; (5) the location of contraband within the
defendant’s plain view; and (6) the mingling of contraband with other items the
defendant owns.” Id. at 572-73.
[14] In this case, the contraband was found near a place Finton usually sits and
within close proximity of some of his belongings. During Finton’s formal
interview with Officer Hillman, Finton stated he had been living with Fisher for
a month and that “he isolates himself in [the] corner of the couch next to his
laptop.” (Tr. p. 105). When Officer Hillman first noticed the contraband, he
observed that it was located next to a black end table with Finton’s laptop on it
at the end of the couch. This was the specific area that Finton said he isolates
himself, and it was in close proximity to his laptop. During Fisher’s testimony,
she identified a photograph of a basket in the living room “that [she] asked
[Finton] to start putting his stuff in cause [sic] [she] was tired of cleaning up
after him.” (Tr. p. 66). This basket was located on the floor next to the corner
of the couch that Finton usually sits on. It was also the basket where the tin full
of paraphernalia was found. When Fisher was asked to identify the items in the
tin during her testimony, she identified the pipe, the two hollowed-out pens,
and “[Finton’s] gum” as all being in the tin together. (Tr. p. 75). Fisher’s
testimony establishes Finton’s items in close proximity to the contraband.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 19A-CR-960 | December 4, 2019 Page 7 of 8
Given these additional circumstances, the fact-finder can infer that Finton had
knowledge of the presence of the contraband and the ability to control it, thus
proving the intent element of constructive possession. Therefore, the State
established that Finton constructively possessed both methamphetamine and
paraphernalia.
CONCLUSION
[15] Based on the foregoing, we hold that the State did provide sufficient evidence
beyond a reasonable doubt to support Finton’s conviction for possession of
paraphernalia and possession of methamphetamine.
[16] Affirmed.
[17] Vaidik, C. J. and Bradford, J. concur
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 19A-CR-960 | December 4, 2019 Page 8 of 8