Tyreoun D. Guy v. State of Indiana (mem. dec.) ( 2018 )

MEMORANDUM DECISION
Pursuant to Ind. Appellate Rule 65(D),
this Memorandum Decision shall not be FILED
regarded as precedent or cited before any Dec 31 2018, 7:13 am
court except for the purpose of establishing
CLERK
the defense of res judicata, collateral Indiana Supreme Court
Court of Appeals
estoppel, or the law of the case. and Tax Court
ATTORNEY FOR APPELLANT ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE
Timothy E. Stucky Curtis T. Hill, Jr.
Stucky, Lauer & Young, LLP Attorney General of Indiana
Fort Wayne, Indiana Monika Prekopa Talbot
Supervising Deputy Attorney
General
Indianapolis, Indiana
IN THE
COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA
Tyreoun D. Guy, December 31, 2018
Appellant-Defendant, Court of Appeals Case No.
18A-CR-1558
v. Appeal from the Allen Superior
Court
State of Indiana, The Honorable David M. Zent,
Appellee-Plaintiff. Magistrate
Trial Court Cause No.
02D05-1803-CM-1157
Mathias, Judge.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 18A-CR-1558 | December 31, 2018 Page 1 of 6
[1] Tyreoun Guy (“Guy”) was convicted in Allen Superior Court of Class A
misdemeanor trespass. Guy appeals and argues that the evidence is insufficient
to support his conviction.
[2] We affirm.
Facts and Procedural History
[3] On March 13, 2018, Guy was present for a hearing in a courtroom at the Bud
Meeks Justice Center in Fort Wayne, Indiana. Guy was not a party to a case
but was there to provide moral support for a friend. Guy was seated in the
courtroom’s gallery.
[4] Robert Rinearson (“Rinearson”), a bailiff with the Allen County Sheriff’s
Department, brought inmates into the courtroom from holding cells. As
Rinearson was seating the inmates in the courtroom, he heard an individual in
the gallery, later identified as Guy, speaking in a loud voice. Guy also had his
hands raised. Guy, and the other individuals in the gallery, had been instructed
not to speak to any of the inmates or amongst themselves.
[5] Rinearson told Guy he had to leave the courtroom. Guy continued to stand and
make gestures with his hands apparently to communicate with one of the
inmates who was seated in the courtroom. Rinearson and another bailiff
repeated their command to Guy to leave the courtroom.
[6] Guy continued to speak but did start to walk out of the courtroom after he was
told to leave a second time. Rinearson followed him out of the courtroom. Guy
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 18A-CR-1558 | December 31, 2018 Page 2 of 6
hit the courtroom doors with a significant amount of force, which caused the
second set of doors to bang against the wall. Rinearson told Guy to “knock it
off.” Tr. p. 26. Rinearson then repeated his command to Guy to exit the
courthouse, and Guy began to argue with him. Guy insisted that he had not
done anything wrong.
[7] Guy was walking toward the building’s exit, when he stopped, turned toward
Rinearson, and stated that he was not leaving the courthouse. Tr. pp. 29–30.
Guy took one or two steps toward Rinearson, which was also in the direction of
the courtroom he had exited. At that point, Rinearson told Guy he was under
arrest and placed him in handcuffs with the assistance of two other law
enforcement officers.1 Although Rinearson was not wearing a uniform and
never identified himself as a security officer for the court, he was wearing a
highly visible identification badge and a gun holster.
[8] On March 14, 2018, the State charged Guy with Class A misdemeanor resisting
law enforcement, Class A misdemeanor trespass, and Class B misdemeanor
disorderly conduct. A bench trial was held on June 4, 2018. Guy was acquitted
of resisting law enforcement and disorderly conduct but found guilty of
trespass. The trial court ordered Guy to serve 365 days in the Allen County Jail
with 185 days suspended. Guy now appeals.
1
Guy refused to place his hands behind his back. His hands and arms were forcefully moved from his front
to his back by two assisting officers.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 18A-CR-1558 | December 31, 2018 Page 3 of 6
Standard of Review
[9] Guy argues that the evidence is insufficient to sustain his trespass conviction.
When we review a claim of insufficient evidence, we consider only the
probative evidence and reasonable inferences supporting the verdict. Jackson v.
State, 50 N.E.3d 767, 770 (Ind. 2016). It is the fact-finder’s role, not ours, to
assess witness credibility and weigh the evidence to determine whether it is
sufficient to support a conviction. Id. We will affirm the conviction unless no
reasonable fact-finder could have found the elements of the crime proven
beyond a reasonable doubt. Id. It is therefore 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
judgment. Drane v. State, 867 N.E.2d 144, 146–47 (Ind. 2007).
Discussion and Decision
[10] To convict Guy of Class A misdemeanor criminal trespass, the State was
required to prove that he knowingly or intentionally refused to leave the Bud
Meeks Justice Center after he was asked to leave by Rinearson, and that Guy
did not have a contractual interest in the property. See Appellant’s App. p. 14;
Ind. Code § 35-43-2-2(b)(2) (“A person who . . . not having a contractual
interest in the property, knowingly or intentionally refuses to leave the real
property of another person after having been asked to leave by the other person
or that person’s agent . . . commits criminal trespass, a Class A
misdemeanor.”). Guy argues that the State failed to prove that he refused to
leave the property, and that he knew, or should have known, that Rinearson
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 18A-CR-1558 | December 31, 2018 Page 4 of 6
was a “law enforcement officer or an authorized agent of the court with the
authority to instruct him to leave the premises.” Appellant’s Br. at 9.
[11] Guy initially refused to leave the courtroom after he was ordered to do so.
Rinearson told him to leave the courtroom a second time, and Guy did walk
out of the courtroom after the second command. Because Guy was creating a
disturbance, Rinearson told Guy to exit the courthouse. Guy argued with
Rinearson and insisted that he had not done anything wrong. Guy began to
walk toward the building’s exit, but then stopped, turned toward Rinearson,
and stated that he was not leaving the courthouse. Tr. pp. 29–30. Guy then took
one or two steps toward the courtroom he had previously exited. This evidence
is sufficient to prove that Guy knowingly or intentionally refused to leave the
Bud Meeks Justice Center after he was ordered to do so.
[12] Guy also knew or should have known that Rinearson was a court security
officer who had authority to order him to leave the premises.2 Rinearson is a
part-time bailiff for the Allen County Sheriff’s Department. Rinearson’s job
duties include giving orders and instructions in the courtroom, and he has the
2
An agency relationship exists when one person gives another person authority to act on his or her behalf.
Glispie v. State, 955 N.E.2d 819, 822 (Ind. Ct. App. 2011).
“Agency is a relationship resulting from the manifestation of consent by one party to
another that the latter will act as an agent for the former.” To establish an actual agency
relationship, three elements must be shown: (1) manifestation of consent by the principal,
(2) acceptance of authority by the agent, and (3) control exerted by the principal over the
agent. These elements may be proven by circumstantial evidence, and there is no
requirement that the agent’s authority to act be in writing.
Id. (quoting Demming v. Underwood, 943 N.E.2d 878, 883 (Ind. Ct. App. 2011), trans. denied).
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 18A-CR-1558 | December 31, 2018 Page 5 of 6
power to make arrests. Rinearson was not wearing a uniform on the date at
issue, but he was wearing a highly visible identification badge and a gun
holster. He was also responsible for transporting inmates to the courtroom and
supervising inmates while they were seated in the jury box, duties that Guy had
observed earlier that morning. Moreover, a uniformed police officer at the
courthouse also told Guy to leave the building or he would be arrested. Tr. p.
54.
[13] For all of these reasons, we conclude that the State proved beyond a reasonable
doubt that Guy committed Class A misdemeanor criminal trespass, and his
conviction is affirmed.
[14] Affirmed.
Bailey, J., and Bradford, J., concur.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 18A-CR-1558 | December 31, 2018 Page 6 of 6