Darius Dashawn Anderson v. State of Indiana (mem. dec.) ( 2017 )


Menu:
  • MEMORANDUM DECISION
    FILED
    Pursuant to Ind. Appellate Rule 65(D),                                  May 18 2017, 10:10 am
    this Memorandum Decision shall not be                                        CLERK
    Indiana Supreme Court
    regarded as precedent or cited before any                                   Court of Appeals
    and Tax Court
    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
    Sean P. Hilgendorf                                      Curtis T. Hill, Jr.
    South Bend, Indiana                                     Attorney General
    Matthew B. MacKenzie
    Deputy Attorney General
    Indianapolis, Indiana
    IN THE
    COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA
    Darius Anderson,                                        May 18, 2017
    Appellant-Defendant,                                    Court of Appeals Case No.
    71A04-1611-CR-2693
    v.                                              Appeal from the St. Joseph
    Superior Court
    State of Indiana,                                       The Honorable Jane Woodward
    Appellee-Plaintiff                                      Miller, Judge
    Trial Court Cause No.
    71D01-1603-F3-20
    Crone, Judge.
    Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 71A04-1611-CR-2693 | May 18, 2017              Page 1 of 6
    Case Summary
    [1]   Darius Anderson appeals his convictions, following a bench trial, for two
    counts of level 3 felony attempted robbery. Anderson asserts that the State
    presented insufficient evidence to support his convictions. Finding the evidence
    sufficient, we affirm.
    Facts and Procedural History
    The evidence most favorable to the convictions indicates that on March 24,
    2016, Candice Kramer and her friend Tiffany Hisler drove to Mishawaka to
    pick up Anderson and his friend Dwayne Johnson. Hisler and Johnson
    previously met on a dating website and had been talking to each other for a
    couple weeks. After picking up Anderson and Johnson, Kramer and Hisler
    drove back to Hisler’s apartment in Michigan where all four of them hung out
    to “get to know each other” better. Tr. at 8. Toward the end of the evening,
    Kramer agreed to drive Anderson and Johnson back to Mishawaka, but Hisler
    told Johnson to give Kramer ten dollars for gas money. Johnson angrily gave
    Kramer ten dollars for gas but told Hisler he was going to “beat [Kramer’s]
    ass.” 
    Id. at 49.
    On the way back to Mishawaka, the women sat in the front seat
    of the car, and the men sat in the back seat. As they were driving, Johnson
    texted Hisler that their relationship was over. Kramer could hear that
    Anderson and Johnson were having a mumbled conversation, but she could not
    make out what they were saying to each other. Unbeknownst to the women,
    Johnson and Anderson were discussing what was “about to happen.” 
    Id. at 85.
    Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 71A04-1611-CR-2693 | May 18, 2017   Page 2 of 6
    [2]   Johnson directed Kramer to drive to the very back of the parking lot by a
    dumpster located in the Hickory Village Apartments. When Kramer parked the
    car, Johnson and Anderson both pulled out handguns, pointed their guns at
    Kramer and Hisler, and aggressively demanded both women’s belongings.
    Both men reached over the seat and tried to grab Kramer’s bag that was sitting
    next to the middle console. Johnson also tried to grab the gas money from
    Hisler. Kramer held onto her bag, and as she tussled with both men, Johnson
    stated, “[G]ive me all your shit bitch. Give me all your shit.” 
    Id. at 41.
    Johnson then exited the car and tried to open the passenger-side door where
    Hisler was seated, but the door was locked. Simultaneously, Anderson exited
    the car and opened the driver’s-side door and tried to pull Kramer and her bag
    from the vehicle. Anderson punched Kramer in the face during the scuffle, but
    she was able to keep control of her bag and shut and lock her door. Johnson
    and Anderson then fled the scene together while Kramer and Hisler drove to a
    church and called the police. When police eventually located Johnson and
    Anderson in a nearby apartment complex, they were still together.
    [3]   The State charged Anderson with two counts of level 3 felony attempted
    robbery. Following a bench trial, the trial court found Anderson guilty as
    charged. The court sentenced Anderson to four years executed on each count,
    to be served consecutively, for an aggregate sentence of eight years. This appeal
    ensued.
    Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 71A04-1611-CR-2693 | May 18, 2017   Page 3 of 6
    Discussion and Decision
    [4]   Anderson contends that the State presented insufficient evidence to support his
    attempted robbery convictions. When reviewing a claim of insufficient
    evidence, we neither reweigh the evidence nor assess witness credibility. Bell v.
    State, 
    31 N.E.3d 495
    , 499 (Ind. 2015). We look to the evidence and reasonable
    inferences drawn therefrom that support the conviction, and will affirm if there
    is probative evidence from which a reasonable factfinder could have found the
    defendant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. 
    Id. In short,
    if the testimony
    believed by the trier of fact is enough to support the conviction, then the
    reviewing court will not disturb it. 
    Id. at 500.
    [5]   To convict Anderson of his offenses as charged, the State was required to prove
    beyond a reasonable doubt that, while armed with a deadly weapon, Anderson
    knowingly or intentionally attempted to take property from Kramer and Hisler
    by threatening the use of force. See Ind. Code §§ 35-42-5-1 (robbery), 35-41-5-1
    (attempt). Additionally, a “person who knowingly or intentionally aids,
    induces, or causes another to commit an offense, commits that offense ….”
    Ind. Code § 35-41-2-4. “It is well settled that there is no distinction between the
    responsibility of a principal and an accomplice.” Stokes v. State, 
    919 N.E.2d 1240
    , 1245 (Ind. Ct. App. 2010), trans. denied. Anderson asserts that while the
    evidence is sufficient to prove that Johnson1 was armed with a handgun and
    1
    The record indicates that Johnson pled guilty to one count of level 3 felony attempted robbery. Tr. at 74.
    He testified at Anderson’s bench trial as a prosecution witness.
    Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 71A04-1611-CR-2693 | May 18, 2017                Page 4 of 6
    attempted to take property from both women by threatening the use of force,
    there was an “evidentiary discrepancy” regarding whether Anderson was armed
    and his level of participation in these crimes, and therefore there was
    insufficient evidence to convict him as either a principal or an accomplice.
    Appellant’s Br. at 8. We disagree.
    [6]   Kramer testified that both Anderson and Johnson were armed with handguns,
    both men pointed their guns at the two victims, and both men aggressively
    demanded both women’s belongings. See Tr. at 15. This testimony was
    sufficient to support Anderson’s convictions of attempted robbery as a principal
    with respect to both victims.
    [7]   Moreover, even assuming that Johnson was the principal perpetrator of the
    crimes, factors generally considered in determining whether a person has aided
    another in the commission of a crime include: (1) presence at the scene of the
    crime; (2) companionship with another engaged in a crime; (3) failure to oppose
    the commission of the crime; and (4) the course of conduct before, during, and
    after the occurrence of the crime. 
    Stokes, 919 N.E.2d at 1245
    . All four factors
    overwhelmingly support a conclusion that Anderson knowingly or intentionally
    aided Johnson in the commission of two attempted robberies. Indeed,
    Anderson was no mere spectator to these crimes as he appears to suggest. The
    evidence shows that after Johnson directed Kramer to drive to the back of the
    parking lot, he and Anderson talked quietly about what was “about to happen.”
    Tr. at 85. Anderson not only aggressively demanded both women’s belongings
    while armed with a deadly weapon, but when Johnson exited the car and tried
    Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 71A04-1611-CR-2693 | May 18, 2017   Page 5 of 6
    to get money from Hisler, Anderson also exited the car and tried to grab
    Kramer’s bag, punching her in the face during the struggle. The two men fled
    the scene together and were still together when located by police. In sum, the
    evidence supports Anderson’s convictions as both a principal and an
    accomplice. Accordingly, we affirm.
    [8]   Affirmed.
    Baker, J., and Barnes, J., concur.
    Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 71A04-1611-CR-2693 | May 18, 2017   Page 6 of 6
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 71A04-1611-CR-2693

Filed Date: 5/18/2017

Precedential Status: Precedential

Modified Date: 5/18/2017