Robert Ledbetter, Jr. v. State of Indiana (mem. dec.) ( 2015 )

MEMORANDUM DECISION
Pursuant to Ind. Appellate Rule 65(D), this
Memorandum Decision shall not be regarded as Feb 13 2015, 10:00 am
precedent or cited before any court except for the
purpose of establishing the defense of res judicata,
collateral estoppel, or the law of the case.
ATTORNEY FOR APPELLANT ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE
Michelle F. Kraus Gregory F. Zoeller
Fort Wayne, Indiana Attorney General of Indiana
Graham T. Youngs
Deputy Attorney General
Indianapolis, Indiana
IN THE
COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA
Robert Ledbetter, Jr., February 13, 2015
Appellant-Defendant, Court of Appeals Case No.
02A03-1406-CR-197
v. Appeal from the Allen Superior
Court
The Honorable Frances C. Gull,
State of Indiana, Judge
Appellee-Plaintiff Case No. 02D04-1306-FC-200
Crone, Judge.
Case Summary
[1] A jury found Robert Ledbetter, Jr., guilty of class D felony theft. Ledbetter
challenges the sufficiency of the evidence supporting his conviction, claiming
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 02A03-1406-CR-197 | February 13, 2015 Page 1 of 5
that the State failed to present sufficient evidence that he formed the requisite
intent under the theft statute. We affirm.
Facts and Procedural History
[2] The facts most favorable to the jury’s verdict are that around 11:00 p.m. on
June 10, 2013, Officer Greg Anderson of the City of New Haven Police
Department responded to a dispatch regarding a suspicious vehicle on a service
road near Mills Auto Parts, a scrap auto parts store. Officer James Krueger
arrived as backup. They walked to the end of the service road and found an
unoccupied car parked on the side of a ditch opposite Mills Auto Parts. The car
was registered to Ledbetter. The officers observed that the back seats were
folded down and plastic covered the back part of the car.
[3] The officers hid in the nearby weeds for almost two hours. At that time, they
heard people whispering and the clanking of metal. The officers then observed
Ledbetter, Troy Lehr, and Pervis Hall carrying rims. The men had walked
without lights along a brushy area and through a creek to reach the car. As the
men approached the vehicle, the trunk was opened, and an interior light came
on. Officer Anderson heard one of the men ask how to turn off the light. The
officers came out of hiding and arrested the men. Lehr told the officers that he
was working with the FBI. Between two piles at the car and at the creek, the
officers discovered eleven rims, four car batteries, and three alternators.
[4] Officer Krueger contacted James Mills, the owner of Mills Auto Parts. Mills
came to the location and identified the parts as his. Mills took Officer Krueger
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 02A03-1406-CR-197 | February 13, 2015 Page 2 of 5
into his building, where they saw a broken window pane and an empty spot on
the shelves where the rims had been. There were rims sitting outside the
window. Mills did not know any of the men, nor had he given them permission
to enter his property.
[5] The State charged Ledbetter with one count of class C felony burglary and one
count of class D felony theft. Lehr was charged with one count of class C
felony burglary, three counts of class C felony aiding burglary, and one count of
class D felony theft, and he reached a plea agreement with the State. Pursuant
to the agreement, Lehr was required to testify truthfully in any criminal
proceeding brought by the State against other defendants in this matter in
exchange for the State’s dismissal of five other charges.
[6] At Ledbetter’s trial, Lehr testified as follows. Lehr had known Ledbetter for
approximately one-and-a-half to two years. He went to Mills Auto Parts with
the intention to steal scrap metal. He went alone on foot, found a window
without glass, and entered. He started carrying rims outside to the edge of the
property. He needed someone with a car to haul the scrap metal. According to
Lehr, he called Ledbetter and “told him that I actually worked there and that
my boss had given me permission to take the stuff and that I had permission to
take the stuff out of there.” Tr. at 80. Ledbetter and Hall arrived together, and
Lehr directed them to drive on the service road. Lehr told Ledbetter that they
were moving the scrap metal at 11:00 p.m. because “when I got off work I
didn’t have a ride and I’ve been stuck trying to find a ride.” Id. at 81. Upon
arrest, Lehr told the officers that he was working for the FBI “because I was
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 02A03-1406-CR-197 | February 13, 2015 Page 3 of 5
trying to get out of trouble.” Id. at 90. He testified that he would lie “for me to
get out of trouble,” but not to get others out of trouble. Id. According to Lehr,
he misled Ledbetter about having permission to enter the property and take the
scrap metal.
[7] Neither Ledbetter nor Hall testified at trial. A jury found Ledbetter guilty of
theft and not guilty of burglary.
Discussion and Decision
[8] Ledbetter argues that the State presented insufficient evidence to support his
theft conviction. In reviewing a challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence,
“we neither reweigh the evidence nor assess witness credibility, and will focus
on the evidence most favorable to the verdict together with the reasonable
inferences that may be drawn therefrom. We will affirm unless no reasonable
factfinder could find the elements of the crime proved beyond a reasonable
doubt.” Cooper v. State, 940 N.E.2d 1210, 1213 (Ind. Ct. App. 2011) (citation
omitted), trans. denied.
[9] Indiana Code Section 35-43-4-2(a) provides in pertinent part that “[a] person
who knowingly or intentionally exerts unauthorized control over property of
another person, with intent to deprive the other person of any part of its value
or use, commits theft.” “Intent can be inferred from a defendant’s conduct and
the natural and usual sequence to which such conduct logically and reasonably
points. . . . Intent is a mental function; hence, absent a confession, it often must
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 02A03-1406-CR-197 | February 13, 2015 Page 4 of 5
be proven by circumstantial evidence.” Knox v. State, 13 N.E.3d 899, 901 (Ind.
Ct. App. 2014) (citations and quotation marks omitted).
[10] Ledbetter asserts that there is unrebutted testimony that he acted under the
belief that Lehr had permission to remove the property. This assertion is an
invitation to reweigh the evidence and assess witness credibility, which we may
not do. The jury was entitled to disbelieve Lehr’s testimony that Ledbetter
believed he had permission to remove property from Mills Auto Parts and to
credit the significant circumstantial evidence tending to show that Ledbetter
knowingly or intentionally exerted unauthorized control over the property. The
evidence is sufficient to support Ledbetter’s conviction.
[11] Affirmed.
Friedlander, J., and Kirsch, J., concur.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 02A03-1406-CR-197 | February 13, 2015 Page 5 of 5