Dewayne Walker v. State of Indiana ( 2012 )

Pursuant to Ind.Appellate Rule 65(D),
FILED
this Memorandum Decision shall not
be regarded as precedent or cited
before any court except for the purpose
Dec 14 2012, 8:47 am
of establishing the defense of res
judicata, collateral estoppel, or the law
of the case. CLERK
of the supreme court,
court of appeals and
tax court
ATTORNEY FOR APPELLANT: ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE:
MICHELLE F. KRAUS GREGORY F. ZOELLER
Fort Wayne, Indiana Attorney General of Indiana
KATHERINE MODESITT COOPER
Deputy Attorney General
Indianapolis, Indiana
IN THE
COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA
DEWAYNE WALKER, )
)
Appellant, )
)
vs. ) No. 02A03-1204-CR-199
)
STATE OF INDIANA, )
)
Appellee. )
APPEAL FROM THE ALLEN SUPERIOR COURT
The Honorable John F. Surbeck, Jr., Judge
Cause No. 02D06-1104-FB-79
December 14, 2012
MEMORANDUM DECISION – NOT FOR PUBLICATION
BARNES, Judge
Case Summary
Dewayne Walker appeals his conviction for Class B felony burglary. We affirm.
Issue
Walker raises one issue, which we restate as whether the trial court properly
denied his request to instruct the jury on the lesser-included offense of residential entry.
Facts
Kenneth Watkins lived at a residence in Fort Wayne, and Ray Saylor was his
neighbor. On April 12, 2011, Watkins and his daughter went to play bingo in the
evening. While Saylor was smoking a cigarette outside, he saw a man in Watkins’s front
yard. Saylor turned to go inside of his house and heard two booming noises. He then
saw that Watkins’s front door had been knocked down. Saylor called 911 and stayed on
the phone until the police arrived. Saylor saw a man walk past the front door several
times, and he did not see anyone else enter or leave Watkins’s house.
Officer Steven Ealing of the Fort Wayne Police Department received a dispatch of
a burglary in progress at Watkins’s residence and arrived at the residence a couple of
minutes later. When Officer Ealing arrived, he saw Walker in the living room. When
Officer Ealing announced himself, Walker ran toward the back of the house, and Officer
Ealing heard glass breaking. At the same time, Officer Dale Llewellyn was positioned at
the back of the house and saw that a window on the back of the house was being broken.
Officer Llewellyn ordered the person in the house to come to the back door, but he heard
footsteps running away from the back door toward the front of the house. When the man
did not return to Officer Ealing’s position at the front door, the officers announced that
2
the police canine would be sent in, and Walker came out. Walker had Watkins’s remote
controls in his pockets.
When Watkins arrived home, he found that his front door had been “busted down”
and a rear window was broken. Tr. p. at 32. His possessions were knocked down,
thrown around, and scattered, and his bedroom was “completely tore apart.” Id. at 33.
His television, Wii gaming system, some other electronics, and frozen food had been
moved and were stacked by the front door. An antique gun that he kept under his
mattress was found in the middle of the hallway.
The State charged Walker with Class B felony burglary and Class A misdemeanor
resisting law enforcement. The State later alleged that Walker was an habitual offender.
At Walker’s jury trial, he proposed a jury instruction on the lesser-included offense of
residential entry. The trial court found no serious evidentiary dispute regarding Walker’s
intent and refused the proposed instruction. The jury found Walker guilty as charged.
Walker now appeals his burglary conviction.
Analysis
Walker argues that the trial court erred by denying his request for an instruction on
the lesser-included offense of residential entry. “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.”
Taylor v. State, 943 N.E.2d 414, 416-17 (Ind. Ct. App. 2011) (citing Overstreet v. State,
783 N.E.2d 1140, 1163 (Ind. 2003), cert. denied), trans. denied. When a defendant
requests a lesser-included offense instruction, the trial court must apply a three-part
3
analysis: (1) determine whether the lesser-included offense is inherently included in the
crime charged; if it is not, (2) determine whether the lesser-included offense is factually
included in the crime charged; and, if either inherently included or factually included, (3)
determine whether a serious evidentiary dispute exists whereby the jury could conclude
that the lesser offense was committed but not the greater. Id. at 417 (citing Hauk v. State,
729 N.E.2d 994, 998 (Ind. 2000). The trial court should grant the defendant’s request for
a lesser-included offense instruction if it answers the third inquiry affirmatively. Id.The offense of residential entry is inherently included in the offense of burglary.
Id. at 418. Walker proposed a jury instruction regarding residential entry as a lesser-
included offense of burglary, but the trial court rejected the instruction. The trial court
found no serious evidentiary dispute whereby a jury could have concluded that residential
entry was committed but not burglary. Our review here is limited to whether the trial
court properly determined that there was no serious evidentiary dispute whereby the jury
could have concluded that the lesser offense was committed but not the greater. “In
deference to trial courts’ proximity to the evidence, we review a finding as to the
existence or lack of a serious evidentiary dispute for an abuse of discretion.” Id. at 417
(citing McEwen v. State, 695 N.E.2d 79, 84 (Ind. 1998)).
The offense of residential entry “contains all of the elements of burglary as a class
B felony except that it does not require proof of intent to commit a felony in the dwelling
that is entered.” Campbell v. State, 732 N.E.2d 197, 207 (Ind. Ct. App. 2000)
(comparing Ind. Code § 35-43-2-1 with Ind. Code § 35-43-2-1.5). The State alleged that
Walker “did knowingly or intentionally break and enter the dwelling of another person, to
4
wit: Kenneth Watkins, with intent to commit a felony therein, to wit: theft . . . .” App. p.
10. Walker argues that there is an evidentiary dispute regarding his intent “for being
inside the house.” Appellant’s Br. p. 6. However, the evidence demonstrated that
Walker was found inside Watkins’s residence, and the house had been ransacked.
Watkins’s television, Wii gaming console, other electronics, and frozen food had been
moved and were found stacked next to the front door. Watkins’s gun had been removed
from under his mattress and placed on the floor in the hallway, and Watkins’s remote
controls were found in Walker’s pockets. Given these facts, we agree with the trial court
that there is no serious evidentiary dispute regarding Walker’s intent to commit theft.
The trial court properly denied Walker’s request for a jury instruction on the lesser-
included offense of residential entry.
Conclusion
The trial court properly rejected Walker’s request for an instruction on the lesser-
included offense of residential entry. We affirm.
Affirmed.
BAKER, J., and RILEY, J., concur.
5