Shaquille Hollingsworth v. State of Indiana (mem. dec.) ( 2019 )

MEMORANDUM DECISION
Pursuant to Ind. Appellate Rule 65(D), FILED
this Memorandum Decision shall not be
Mar 27 2019, 10:33 am
regarded as precedent or cited before any
court except for the purpose of establishing CLERK
Indiana Supreme Court
Court of Appeals
the defense of res judicata, collateral and Tax Court
estoppel, or the law of the case.
ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLANT ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE
Valerie K. Boots Curtis T. Hill, Jr.
Ellen M. O’Connor Attorney General of Indiana
Marion County Public Defender Agency Matthew F. Kite
– Appellate Division Angela Sanchez
Indianapolis, Indiana Deputy Attorneys General
Indianapolis, Indiana
IN THE
COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA
Shaquille Hollingsworth, March 27, 2019
Appellant-Defendant, Court of Appeals Case No.
18A-CR-2173
v. Appeal from the Marion Superior
Court
State of Indiana, The Honorable Jeffrey L. Marchal,
Appellee-Plaintiff. Magistrate
Trial Court Cause No.
49G06-1805-F4-15382
Mathias, Judge.
[1] Following a bench trial in Marion Superior Court, Shaquille Hollingsworth
(“Hollingsworth”) was convicted of Level 4 felony burglary, Level 6 felony
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 18A-CR-2173 | March 27, 2019 Page 1 of 7
theft of a firearm, Class A misdemeanor carrying a handgun without a license,
and Class A resisting law enforcement. Hollingsworth appeals and argues that
the evidence is insufficient to support his convictions for burglary and theft.
[2] We affirm.
Facts and Procedural History
[3] On the afternoon of May 9, 2018, Rex Stanley (“Stanley”) was watching
television with his wife in his home in Indianapolis when he looked out of his
window and saw two men get out of a white Dodge Durango and walk down
the street. One of the men was wearing a gray hooded sweatshirt, and the other,
later identified as Hollingsworth, was wearing a red shirt and carrying a black
backpack. Stanley then sat down to watch television. A few minutes later, he
and his wife heard dogs barking outside. Stanley looked out a window in the
rear of his home and saw two men, who had the same appearance and clothing
as the ones who had gotten out of the Durango, kick in the door of a
neighboring home owned by James Allen (“Allen”). Stanley telephoned the
police and went outside to investigate. While outside, he saw the two men
inside his neighbor’s home. Stanley went back inside his home and later saw
the two men reenter the white Durango and leave.
[4] Officer Eric Snowden (“Officer Snowden”) was on patrol when he received a
dispatch regarding the suspected burglary and soon saw a white Durango,
which matched the description of the one seen leaving the scene, parked at a
nearby convenience store. Officer Snowden saw two men enter the vehicle, one
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 18A-CR-2173 | March 27, 2019 Page 2 of 7
of whom was wearing a red shirt and had a black bookbag. After the two men
got in the vehicle, they left the convenience store lot and drove away. Officer
Snowden followed the Durango until backup could arrive, then pulled the
vehicle over.
[5] After the vehicle stopped, the two men Officer Snowden had just seen enter the
vehicle opened the doors, got out, and ran away. Officer Snowden exited his
patrol car, identified himself as a police officer, and ordered the men to stop to
no avail. Officer Snowden chased the men on foot, but the two men split up as
they fled. Officer Snowden followed the man with the red shirt and black
bookbag, i.e., Hollingsworth.
[6] Hollingsworth briefly evaded Officer Snowden, but a resident of a nearby home
informed Officer Snowden that the man he had been chasing was hiding under
a car parked in a neighboring driveway. Officer Snowden then took
Hollingsworth into custody, but Hollingsworth no longer had the bookbag.
Officer Snowden advised Hollingsworth of his Miranda rights and asked
Hollingsworth about the bag. Hollingsworth claimed that he had given the
bookbag to his brother. After Hollingsworth had been placed in a jail wagon,
Officer Snowden searched for the bookbag. Another resident of the
neighborhood told Officer Snowden that the bookbag was located on the roof of
a carport1 attached to a neighboring house. Officer Snowden borrowed a ladder
1
Officer Snowden described the carport as a “garage,” but the photograph taken shows a carport.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 18A-CR-2173 | March 27, 2019 Page 3 of 7
from a neighbor and retrieved the bookbag. When he opened the partially
opened bag, Officer Snowden saw the barrel of a handgun and ammunition
magazines. Evidence technician Officer Larry Giordano (“Officer Giordano”)
arrived and took custody of the bookbag. Inside the bag, Officer Giordano
found, among other things, two Smith and Wesson handguns and five
ammunition magazines. Subsequent testing revealed that Hollingsworth’s
fingerprint was on one of the ammunition magazines.
[7] When Allen, the owner of the burglarized home, returned to his house, he saw
that his back door was standing open, the lock was still extended, and the door
frame was broken. Inside, the home had been ransacked, and two Smith and
Wesson handguns and five ammunition magazines had been stolen. Allen
identified the handguns and ammunition found in the bookbag as the ones
missing from his home.
[8] On May 14, 2018, the State charged Hollingsworth with Level 4 felony
burglary, Level 6 felony theft of a firearm, Class A misdemeanor carrying a
handgun without a license, and Class A resisting law enforcement. A bench
trial was held on July 25, 2018, at the conclusion of which the court found
Hollingsworth guilty as charged. At a sentencing hearing held on August 9,
2018, the trial court declined to enter a judgment of conviction on the count of
carrying a handgun without a license due to double jeopardy concerns. The trial
court found the aggravators and mitigators to be in equipoise and imposed the
advisory term of six years of incarceration on the burglary conviction, and
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 18A-CR-2173 | March 27, 2019 Page 4 of 7
concurrent terms of one year on the theft conviction and 180 days on the
resisting law enforcement conviction. Hollingsworth now appeals.
Discussion and Decision
[9] Hollingsworth argues that the State failed to present evidence sufficient to
support his convictions for burglary and theft. Our standard of review on claims
of insufficient evidence is well settled:
When reviewing a claim that the evidence is insufficient to
support a conviction, we neither reweigh the evidence nor judge
the credibility of the witnesses; instead, we respect the exclusive
province of the trier of fact to weigh any conflicting evidence. We
consider only the probative evidence supporting the [judgment]
and any reasonable inferences which may be drawn from this
evidence. We will affirm if the probative evidence and reasonable
inferences drawn from the evidence could have allowed a
reasonable trier of fact to find the defendant guilty beyond a
reasonable doubt.
Harrison v. State, 32 N.E.3d 240, 247 (Ind. Ct. App. 2015), trans. denied (citing
McHenry v. State, 820 N.E.2d 124, 126 (Ind. 2005)).
[10] To convict Hollingsworth of Level 4 felony burglary, the State was required to
prove that he broke and entered into Allen’s dwelling with the intent to commit
a felony or theft therein. See Appellant’s App. p. 19; Ind. Code § 35-43-2-1(1).
And to convict Hollingsworth of Level 6 felony theft of a firearm, the State was
required to prove that he knowingly exerted unauthorized control over a
firearm belonging to Allen with the intent to deprive Allen of any part of the use
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 18A-CR-2173 | March 27, 2019 Page 5 of 7
or value of the firearm. See Appellant’s App. p. 19; Ind. Code § 35-43-4-
2(a)(1)(B).
[11] Hollingsworth does not challenge that the State established that two men broke
into Allen’s home and stole the firearms. Instead, he argues that the State
presented insufficient evidence to establish that he was one of the two men who
were seen committing the burglary. We disagree.
[12] As detailed above, Allen’s neighbor, Stanley, saw two men get out of a white
Durango, one of whom was wearing a red shirt and carrying a bookbag. He
later saw these two men kick in his neighbor’s door. Stanley went outside and
saw the men rummaging around Allen’s house, and later saw them reenter the
Durango. Shortly thereafter, Officer Snowden saw two men enter a white
Durango, one of whom matched the description of one of the burglars, i.e., a
red shirt and a bookbag. When Officer Snowden pulled over the Durango, the
man in the red shirt and black bookbag ran away. Officer Snowden soon found
Hollingsworth, wearing a red shirt, hiding underneath a car. Hollingsworth
claimed to have given the bag he had been carrying to his brother, but the bag
was soon found on the roof of a nearby carport. The bag contained the
handguns and magazines stolen from Allen’s home, and Hollingsworth’s
fingerprint was found on one of the magazines.
[13] From these facts and circumstances, the trial court could readily conclude that
Hollingsworth was one of the two men who exited the Durango, kicked in the
door to Allen’s home, stole the handguns and magazines, and fled from the
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 18A-CR-2173 | March 27, 2019 Page 6 of 7
police. In other words, the State presented sufficient evidence to prove beyond a
reasonable doubt that Hollingsworth broke and entered into Allen’s home with
the intent to commit a felony or theft therein and that he knowingly exerted
unauthorized control over Allen’s firearm with the intent to deprive him of any
part of the use or value thereof.
Conclusion
[14] Hollingsworth’s argument that he was not involved in the burglary and that he
was just in the Durango as a passenger is merely a request that we consider
facts not favorable to the trial court’s verdict, reweigh the evidence, and come
to a conclusion other than that reached by the trial court. But this is not within
our prerogative as an appellate court. We therefore affirm the judgment of the
trial court.
[15] Affirmed.
Vaidik, C.J., and Crone, J., concur.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 18A-CR-2173 | March 27, 2019 Page 7 of 7