Deandre L. Mathews v. State of Indiana ( 2012 )

Pursuant to Ind. Appellate Rule 65(D), this
FILED
Memorandum Decision shall not be
regarded as precedent or cited before any
court except for the purpose of establishing Dec 07 2012, 10:36 am
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:
KIMBERLY A. JACKSON GREGORY F. ZOELLER
Indianapolis, Indiana Attorney General of Indiana
RYAN D. JOHANNINGSMEIER
Deputy Attorney General
Indianapolis, Indiana
IN THE
COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA
DEANDRE L. MATHEWS, )
)
Appellant-Defendant, )
)
vs. ) No. 49A02-1205-CR-416
)
STATE OF INDIANA, )
)
Appellee-Plaintiff. )
APPEAL FROM THE MARION SUPERIOR COURT
The Honorable Robert R. Altice, Jr., Judge
The Honorable Amy J. Barbar, Magistrate
Cause No. 49G02-1112-FB-86935
December 7, 2012
MEMORANDUM DECISION - NOT FOR PUBLICATION
CRONE, Judge
Case Summary
Deandre L. Mathews appeals his conviction for class B felony burglary, following a
bench trial. The sole issue presented for our review is whether the evidence is sufficient to
sustain his conviction. Finding the evidence sufficient, we affirm.
Facts and Procedural History
On November 14, 2011, at approximately 7:00 a.m., Kathy Dean left her home to go
to work. She locked her door before she left. When she returned at 4:30 p.m., she found her
kitchen window broken and the back door of the home open and dented. The kitchen
drawers were open and the computer in her dining room was unplugged. A couch cushion
and a plant had been moved in the living room and her wall-mounted television had been
turned to face the ceiling. Two video game systems were missing. When she entered her
bedroom, she noticed that her bedroom television was missing, as was her iPod Touch, a jar
of coins, and $302 in cash. Her mattress was turned and her clothes had been strewn about.
In her son’s room, the wall-mounted television was also turned to face the ceiling. Her house
was a “mess.” Tr. at 7.
Dean immediately called the police. Indianapolis Metropolitan Police Department
Officer Dustin Carmack responded to the scene. He observed that Dean’s back door
appeared to have been kicked open and that the house was ransacked. Officer Carmack
noticed fingerprints on each side of the televisions that had been turned toward the ceiling.
Testing subsequently matched Mathews’s fingerprint to the only identifiable fingerprint on
2
the televisions. Dean had never met Mathews and he did not have permission to be in her
home.
On December 12, 2011, the State charged Mathews with class B felony burglary and
class D felony theft. Following a bench trial held on April 19, 2012, the trial court found
Mathews guilty as charged. Determining that the counts merged, the trial court entered
judgment of conviction only as to class B felony burglary and sentenced Mathews to thirteen
years’ incarceration. This appeal ensued.
Discussion and Decision
Mathews challenges the sufficiency of the evidence to sustain his class B felony
burglary conviction. When reviewing the sufficiency of the evidence, we consider only the
probative evidence and reasonable inferences supporting the judgment. Drane v. State, 867
N.E.2d 144, 146 (Ind. 2007). We neither reweigh the evidence nor assess witness credibility.
Id. We consider conflicting evidence most favorably to the judgment and will affirm the
conviction unless no reasonable factfinder could find the elements of the crime proven
beyond a reasonable doubt. Id.To convict Mathews of class B felony burglary, the State was required to prove that
Mathews broke and entered Dean’s home with the intent to commit a felony therein. See Ind.
Code §35-43-2-1. The felony alleged by the State was theft, that is, the knowing or
intentional exertion of unauthorized control over another’s property with the intent to deprive
the other person of any part of its value or use. See Ind. Code § 35-43-4-2. “Circumstantial
evidence alone is sufficient to sustain a burglary conviction.” Baker v. State, 968 N.E.2d
3
227, 230 (Ind. 2012). Indeed, “a burglar’s intent to commit a specific felony at the time of
the breaking and entering may be inferred from the circumstances.” Id. (citations and
quotation marks omitted). However, the evidentiary inference pointing to the defendant’s
intent must be separate from the inference of the defendant’s breaking and entering. Id. In
other words, the inference of intent must not derive from or be supported by the inference of
breaking and entering. Id.Here, the State presented ample evidence to support a reasonable inference that
Mathews broke and entered Dean’s home as well as a reasonable inference that he did so
with the intent to commit theft therein. Dean’s back door had been kicked open, the house
was ransacked, and several items of value were missing. Drawers were left open and items
moved, suggesting that the intruder was looking for additional items to take. Mathews's
fingerprints were indentified on one of the moved items, a television. Dean did not know
Mathews and he did not have permission to enter her home. This evidence is sufficient to
prove that Mathews broke and entered Dean’s home with the intent to commit theft therein.
On appeal, Mathews points to his self-serving testimony that he saw two “older guys”
exiting Dean’s home with valuables and that they must have been the ones who broke and
entered her home with the intent to commit theft. Tr. at 26-27. He also testified that,
although he admittedly entered Dean’s home and watched some television, he did so because
he wanted to escape the cold and the rain and he believed the home was vacant. The entirety
of Mathews’s argument is merely an invitation for this Court to reweigh the evidence and
4
reassess witness credibility on appeal, which we may not do. The State presented sufficient
evidence to sustain Mathews’s class B felony burglary conviction.
Affirmed.
RILEY, J., AND BAILEY, J., concur.
5