Tarrance Battle v. State of Indiana ( 2012 )

Pursuant to Ind.Appellate Rule 65(D),
this Memorandum Decision shall not be
FILED
Jul 27 2012, 9:24 am
regarded as precedent or cited before any
court except for the purpose of
establishing the defense of res judicata, CLERK
of the supreme court,
collateral estoppel, or the law of the case. court of appeals and
tax court
ATTORNEY FOR APPELLANT: ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE:
ELLEN M. O’CONNOR GREGORY F. ZOELLER
Marion County Public Defender Agency Attorney General of Indiana
Indianapolis, Indiana
ERIC P. BABBS
Deputy Attorney General
Indianapolis, Indiana
IN THE
COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA
TARRANCE BATTLE, )
)
Appellant-Defendant, )
)
vs. ) No. 49A02-1110-CR-946
)
STATE OF INDIANA, )
)
Appellee-Plaintiff. )
APPEAL FROM THE MARION SUPERIOR COURT
The Honorable Steven R. Eichholtz, Judge
Cause No. 49G20-1101-FA-3674
July 27, 2012
MEMORANDUM DECISION - NOT FOR PUBLICATION
FRIEDLANDER, Judge
Tarrance Battle appeals his conviction of Possession of Cocaine,1 a class A felony,
presenting the following restated issues for review:
1. Did the trial court err in failing to instruct the jury on a defense
involving mitigating circumstances by which Battle’s offense could be
reduced from an A felony to a C felony?
2. Is the evidence sufficient to support the enhancement of Battle’s
offense to an A felony?
We affirm.
The facts favorable to the conviction are that on January 17, 2011, Detective Sergeant
David Spurgeon of the Indianapolis Metropolitan Police Department (IMPD) arranged a
heroin deal using a confidential informant (C.I.). Sgt. Spurgeon searched the C.I. and gave
him $80.00 in marked money to make the purchase. Standing near the intersection of Haugh
Street and Saint Clair, the C.I. unsuccessfully attempted to telephone the target of the
investigation. While he was there, a silver Dodge Stratus with two occupants pulled to a stop
in front of the C.I. The driver of the Stratus was later identified as Marquan Lee. After
briefly chatting with the two men in the vehicle and expressing a desire to purchase drugs,
the C.I. got in and Lee drove away. IMPD Detective Andrew Deddish followed. After
dropping off the other person in the vehicle at some point, Lee drove to 2817 Walnut Street, a
housing unit in the Concorde Eagle Creek Homes (Concorde Homes) complex. Concorde
Homes was a public housing complex populated largely by families with children.
1
Ind. Code Ann. § 35-48-4-6 (West, Westlaw through legislation effective May 31, 2012).
2
Lee drove to the unit at 2817 Walnut because he believed that Battle had a supply of
drugs for sale and would be at the residence. While Detective David Spurgeon and Detective
Deddish watched, Lee got out of his car, walked up to the front door of the unit at 2817,
knocked, and entered. Lee informed Battle, who was indeed present in the home, he needed
drugs to sell to the person in his car. Battle retrieved crack cocaine and gave it to Lee. Lee
returned to his car three to five minutes after he had left it and sold the crack cocaine to the
C.I. for $80. The C.I. left the scene on foot and soon thereafter gave the substance he
purchased from Lee to Detective Spurgeon. Lee re-entered the unit at 2817 Walnut and gave
Battle $40. The two men then decided to drive to a liquor store. Detective Spurgeon radioed
for uniformed police officers to stop Lee’s vehicle because of the occupants’ involvement in
a drug transaction.
A short time later, IMPD Officers Andrew Trittipo and Kevin Neathery stopped Lee’s
vehicle while in their marked police cars at or near the intersection of 14th and Holmes
Streets. Officer Trittipo removed Lee from the vehicle and handcuffed him. Meanwhile,
Officer Neathery approached Battle, who was still sitting in the car. The officer drew his gun
and ordered Battle to show his hands and get out of the car. Battle did not comply, but
instead remained seated and stared forward, holding a beverage in his left hand, with his right
hand balled up and sitting on his right leg. After the officer for a third time demanded that
Battle show his hands, Battle raised his right hand, which was balled up “as if he was holding
something”, and put something in his mouth. Transcript at 54. To Officer Neathery, “it
appeared to be a light substance in a plastic baggie[.]” Id. Almost immediately, the officer
pulled Battle out of the car and placed him on the ground. He ordered Battle to spit out
3
whatever was in his mouth. After a few seconds, Battle complied. Officer Neathery
observed that “it was a white substance, rock-like substance in a clear plastic baggie.” Id. at
55. The rocks found in the baggie were subsequently tested and determined to contain
3.9678 and .3087 grams of cocaine, respectively.
Battle was charged with dealing in cocaine with intent to deliver and possession of
cocaine within one thousand feet of a family housing complex, both as class A felonies. He
was convicted of the latter charge and sentenced to thirty-two years, with ten years
suspended and two years probation.
1.
I.C. § 35-48-4-16(b) (West, Westlaw through legislation effective May 31, 2012)
provides:
(b) It is a defense for a person charged under this chapter with an offense that
contains an element listed in subsection (a) that:
(1) a person was briefly in, on, or within one thousand (1,000) feet of
school property, a public park, a family housing complex, or a youth
program center; and
(2) no person under eighteen (18) years of age at least three (3) years
junior to the person was in, on, or within one thousand (1,000) feet of
the school property, public park, family housing complex, or youth
program center at the time of the offense.
Battle contends the trial court erred in failing to instruct the jury concerning the foregoing
defense, by which Battle’s offense could have been reduced from an A felony to a C felony.
“The purpose of an instruction is to inform the jury of the law applicable to the facts
without misleading the jury and to enable it to comprehend the case clearly and arrive at a
just, fair, and correct verdict.” Overstreet v. State, 783 N.E.2d 1140, 1163 (Ind. 2003), cert.
4
denied, 540 U.S. 1150 (2004). Instruction of the jury is generally committed to the trial
court’s discretion and is reviewed only for an abuse of that discretion. Overstreet v. State,
783 N.E.2d 1140. During closing argument, Battle’s counsel began to describe the defense
set out in I.C. § 35-48-4-16 when the State interrupted and asked to approach the bench, as
reflected in the following:
[Defense counsel]: Indiana law provides for the defense to possession within
a thousand feet of a protected zone. In this case ---
[the State]: Approach Judge ---
The Court: Approach.
[the State]: There’s not a jury instruction given ---
[Defense counsel]: I don’t have to have a jury instruction to read sound law.
The Court: To read what?
[Defense counsel]: I am going to read the thousand foot defense.
The Court: No, you’re not.
[Defense counsel]: Why not?
The court: Because there’s no instruction on that.
[Defense counsel]: I don’t have to have an instruction to read sound law.
The Court: You do to create a defense. I’m not going to let you
present a defense if you haven’t asked for an instruction
on it. I found that that [sic] it isn’t a defense that should
be given in this case. Objection sustained.
Transcript at 267-68.
A defendant who fails to tender an instruction at trial waives a claim of error on
appeal based upon its omission. White v. State, 687 N.E.2d 178 (Ind. 1997). Battle’s counsel
5
did not tender an instruction concerning the defense set out in I.C. § 35-48-4-16, nor did he
object to its omission. Yet, he contends that his attempt to argue along those lines during
closing argument “could be construed as a request to modify the Instructions to more fully
present an accurate statement of the applicable law.” Appellant’s Brief at 12.
Just moments before final arguments, the trial court discussed the final instructions
with counsel. After addressing and resolving several instructional issues, the trial court
asked, “Anything else beside that that we need to cover?” Transcript at 246. Battle’s
counsel responded, “Not from the Defense, Your Honor.” Id. The court then brought up the
verdict forms it would present to the jury. After the court and the parties agreed on the
verdict forms, the court asked, “All right, everybody’s reviewed the instructions and verdict
forms and they are okay.” Id. at 249. Defense counsel responded, “Yes, Judge.” Id. We
reject the claim that defense counsel’s attempt to discuss the defense during final argument
represented an attempt to accomplish obliquely what he expressly declined to accomplish
moments before in a straightforward manner. His failure to request an instruction on the
thousand-foot defense preserved nothing for appeal. Williams v. State, 771 N.E.2d 70 (Ind.
2002). The issue is waived.
2.
Battle contends the evidence is not sufficient to support the enhancement of his
offense to an A felony. Essentially, Battle contends the State failed to prove that the
thousand-foot defense does not apply. Our standard of reviewing challenges to the
sufficiency of the evidence supporting a criminal conviction is well settled.
When reviewing a claim that the evidence introduced at trial was insufficient
6
to support a conviction, we consider only the probative evidence and
reasonable inferences that support the trial court’s finding of guilt. We
likewise consider conflicting evidence in the light most favorable to the trial
court’s finding. It is therefore not necessary that the evidence overcome every
reasonable hypothesis of innocence. Instead, we will affirm the conviction
unless no reasonable trier of fact could have found the elements of the crime
beyond a reasonable doubt.
Gray v. State, 957 N.E.2d 171, 174 (Ind. 2011). When considering a challenge to the
evidence, we neither reweigh the evidence nor assess the credibility of witnesses. Turner v.
State, 953 N.E.2d 1039 (Ind. 2011).
Assuming, without deciding, that the State was required to prove that the thousand-
foot defense does not apply, we conclude that it did so. Lee traveled to 2817 Walnut because
he had no drugs and believed that Battle would have drugs to sell at that location. The
evidence showed that Battle was located in a house in the Concorde Homes complex when
the drug transaction took place.
After the transaction with the C.I. was completed and Lee and Battle left the scene,
Lee’s vehicle was stopped a short time later. During the stop, Battle was found in possession
of 3.9678 grams of cocaine. The circumstances under which the stop was made permitted a
reasonable inference that Battle had been in possession of the cocaine before Lee arrived at
the Concorde Homes residence to purchase drugs. Latonya Harris, the property manager at
Concorde Homes, testified that Concorde Homes is a “public housing community” consisting
of 175 units. Transcript at 72. She testified that families, seniors, and single people live
there, and that the majority consists of family units. Finally, she estimated that between one
hundred and two hundred children lived there.
Our Supreme Court has determined that “‘briefly,’ as used in the statutory
7
enhancement defense, [means] a period of time no longer than reasonably necessary for a
defendant’s intrusion into the proscribed zone principally for conduct unrelated to unlawful
drug activities, provided that the defendant’s activities related to the charged offense are not
visible.” Griffin v. State, 925 N.E.2d 344, 349-50 (Ind. 2010). Lee testified that he drove to
2817 Walnut because he knew Battle would probably be there, and that Battle would have a
supply of drugs for sale. After Lee entered the house, he and Battle remained inside for
approximately five minutes, during which time Battle gave Lee a quantity of cocaine. Lee
exited the house and gave the cocaine to the C.I. in exchange for eighty dollars in buy
money. Lee returned to the house and, once inside, gave Battle forty dollars of the buy
money. After eight to ten minutes, Lee and Battle exited the house and drove away. This
evidence shows that Battle was present at the scene of the transaction for at least thirteen to
fifteen minutes, and almost certainly longer. Moreover, his presence was for a period longer
than was reasonably necessary for his intrusion into that zone, in that there was evidence that
Battle frequented that house and appears to have been present for some period of time at
2817 Walnut when Lee encountered him there. Finally, the evidence permits a reasonable
inference that while at the house at 2817 Walnut, Battle possessed the cocaine seized from
him when Lee’s car was stopped.
The State presented sufficient evidence to show that Battle possessed at least three
grams of cocaine with one thousand feet of a public housing complex at which children were
present, and that he was there with the cocaine more than briefly. Thus, the evidence was
sufficient to rebut the thousand-foot defense.
Judgment affirmed.
8
MAY, J., and BARNES, J., concur.
9