Miguel I. Sanchez v. State of Indiana (mem. dec.) ( 2016 )

MEMORANDUM DECISION
FILED
Pursuant to Ind. Appellate Rule 65(D),
this Memorandum Decision shall not be Jun 14 2016, 8:23 am
regarded as precedent or cited before any CLERK
Indiana Supreme Court
court except for the purpose of establishing Court of Appeals
and Tax Court
the defense of res judicata, collateral
estoppel, or the law of the case.
ATTORNEY FOR APPELLANT ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE
Neil L. Weisman Gregory F. Zoeller
South Bend, Indiana Attorney General of Indiana
Katherine Modesitt Cooper
Deputy Attorney General
Indianapolis, Indiana
IN THE
COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA
Miguel I. Sanchez, June 14, 2016
Appellant-Defendant, Court of Appeals Case No.
71A05-1601-CR-175
v. Appeal from the St. Joseph
Superior Court
State of Indiana, The Honorable John M.
Appellee-Plaintiff. Marnocha, Judge
Trial Court Cause No.
71D02-1509-F5-193
Altice, Judge.
Case Summary
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 71A05-1601-CR-175 | June 14, 2016 Page 1 of 7
[1] Following a jury trial, Miguel I. Sanchez was convicted of dealing in
methamphetamine by manufacturing, a Level 5 felony. On appeal, Sanchez
argues that the evidence was insufficient to support the jury’s determination
that he was manufacturing methamphetamine.
[2] We affirm.
Facts & Procedural History
[3] Donna McAbee rented Room 230 at the Mishawaka Inn to engage in
prostitution and get high. On the morning of September 3, 2015, Jacklyn Bell
went to McAbee’s room. Several people were in the room when Bell arrived.
Bell felt that there were too many people in the room, so she stepped outside to
smoke a cigarette. While outside, Bell encountered Sanchez. Bell had known
Sanchez since she was twelve years old and considered Sanchez to be “one of
[her] best friends.” Transcript at 130. She asked Sanchez if he had any “dope,”
which she explained was a reference to “meth.” Id. at 132. Sanchez told her
“[n]ot yet” but that he was “almost done.” Id. at 132-33. Bell, who had been
addicted to methamphetamine for eight years and had been exposed to the
manufacturing process multiple times, understood Sanchez’s comments to
mean that “he was in the process of working, making it. And it would be done
soon.” Id. at 133. At that time, Sanchez was carrying a black bag.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 71A05-1601-CR-175 | June 14, 2016 Page 2 of 7
[4] Bell and Sanchez then went to McAbee’s room where Sanchez showed Bell a
Smart Water bottle in his bag that “looked like it was almost done.”1 Id. at 134.
Bell had not seen the Smart Water bottle before Sanchez showed it to her and
she did not bring it to the room.
[5] Bell went to the restroom and hung her blue purse and jean jacket on the inside
of the bathroom door. While still in the bathroom, Bell heard the police knock
on the door to the room. It became chaotic inside as everyone scattered. Bell,
who was scared because of an outstanding warrant, jumped in the shower to
hide from police. Sanchez then entered the bathroom and flushed the toilet.
[6] Officer Brian Costa of the Mishawaka Police Department had been dispatched
to the motel on a report of a domestic disturbance and his investigation led him
to Room 230. From the hallway, Officer Costa could hear voices inside Room
230. After he knocked and identified himself as a police officer, the commotion
inside the room grew louder and more panicked. Officer Costa heard the sound
of a patio door or a window slamming open and then heard the toilet flush.
Just as the officers went to make entry into the room, McAbee opened the door.
Officer Costa observed a male dive out the window, so he entered the room and
proceeded to the window. Officer Costa overheard that a second individual
had jumped out the window and as he looked out, he saw a male and a female
fleeing through an open field behind the motel.
1
Another individual in the room was also manufacturing methamphetamine.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 71A05-1601-CR-175 | June 14, 2016 Page 3 of 7
[7] Officer Costa then turned his attention to the occupants of the room. Sanchez
and Bell were located in the bathroom and brought out into the main room.
Officer Costa observed a “greenish” backpack that was unzipped and open on a
table near the opened window. Transcript at 40. Inside the backpack was a two-
liter bottle with a rubber hose coming from the lid, which Officer Costa knew
from his training to be something used in the manufacture of
methamphetamine. Officer Costa observed a second bottle sitting on the table
near the backpack that contained an unknown liquid. Believing that there was
a possible methamphetamine lab present, Officer Costa evacuated the second
floor of the motel.
[8] During a subsequent search of Room 230, Sergeant Brandon McBrier, an
officer with the Indiana State Police clandestine team, located in the bathroom
a glass smoking pipe, a bottle of sodium hydroxide, and a couple of syringes.
Near the corner of the bathtub he found a blue purse with a Smart Water bottle
that served as the vessel for an active, one-pot methamphetamine lab laying on
top of an open area of the purse and across the purse straps. A wallet with
Bell’s identification card was found inside the bag. Bell testified at trial that the
Smart Water bottle was not in her purse when she hung it up on the back of the
bathroom door. She identified the Smart Water bottle as the bottle Sanchez
had previously shown her when he indicated he was making
methamphetamine.
[9] In addition to the items located in the bathroom, Sergeant McBrier also
discovered several trash bags inside the entrance to the room that contained
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 71A05-1601-CR-175 | June 14, 2016 Page 4 of 7
three used syringes, corner cut plastic baggies, and the remnants of stripped
lithium batteries. In the bedroom the officers recovered three corner-cut and
tied baggies containing a white powdery substance inside a make-up bag, a cold
pack, a loaded syringe, a butane tank, pseudoephedrine blister packs, and a
gallon-size plastic baggie containing paper towels.
[10] On September 4, 2015, the State charged Sanchez with Count I, dealing in
methamphetamine as a Level 5 felony, and Count II, maintaining a common
nuisance, a Level 6 felony. Prior to trial, the State moved to dismiss Count II.
A two-day jury trial commenced on December 1, 2015. At trial, Bell and
McAbee both testified that Sanchez brought the Smart Water bottle that
contained an active methamphetamine lab to Room 230. At the conclusion of
the evidence, the State made the decision to withdraw its tendered final jury
instruction on accomplice liability and thus, submitted the case to the jury on
the sole theory that Sanchez acted as a principal. The jury found Sanchez
guilty as charged. The trial court sentenced Sanchez to six years imprisonment
and ordered the sentence to be served consecutively to the sentence imposed
under another cause. Sanchez now appeals his conviction.
Discussion & Decision
[11] On appeal, Sanchez argues that the State failed to present sufficient evidence to
support his conviction. When reviewing a challenge to the sufficiency of the
evidence, we do not reweigh evidence or judge the credibility of witnesses.
Duncan v. State, 23 N.E.3d 805, 812 (Ind. Ct. App. 2014), trans. denied. Instead,
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 71A05-1601-CR-175 | June 14, 2016 Page 5 of 7
we consider only the evidence and the reasonable inferences supporting the
verdict. Id. If there is substantial evidence of probative value from which a
reasonable trier of fact could have found the defendant guilty of the crime
charged beyond a reasonable doubt, then the judgment will not be disturbed.
Id.
[12] Sanchez concedes that the State presented sufficient evidence to prove that
methamphetamine was being manufactured. Sanchez’s argument is that the
evidence was insufficient to prove that he was one of the individuals
manufacturing methamphetamine. Sanchez asks that this court consider Bell’s
and McAbee’s testimonies through the lens of the incredible dubiosity rule.
Sanchez details circumstances that he contends render their testimonies
“incredible, inconclusive, equivocal and dubious.” Appellant’s Brief at 11.
[13] Under the incredible dubiosity rule, a court will impinge upon the factfinder’s
responsibility to judge the credibility of witnesses only when confronted with
inherently improbable testimony or coerced, equivocal, wholly uncorroborated
testimony of incredible dubiosity. Whatley v. State, 908 N.E.2d 276, 282 (Ind.
Ct. App. 2009), trans. denied. In other words, the evidence presented must be so
unbelievable, incredible, or improbable that no reasonable person could ever
reach a guilty verdict based upon that evidence alone. Moore v. State, 27 N.E.3d
749, 751 (Ind. 2015). We also note that application of this rule is limited to
cases where a single witness presents inherently contradictory testimony which
is equivocal or the result of coercion and there is a complete lack of
circumstantial evidence of guilt. Id.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 71A05-1601-CR-175 | June 14, 2016 Page 6 of 7
[14] Here, Sanchez challenges the testimony of two witnesses and there is
circumstantial evidence of his guilt. Accordingly, the incredible dubiosity rule
does not apply. Even if the rule did apply, the challenged testimony was not so
incredible that no reasonable factfinder could believe it. Moreover, we note the
jury was informed of the circumstances Sanchez claims cast doubt on the
credibility of the witnesses. It was the jury’s sole prerogative to assess the
credibility of the witnesses in light of all of the evidence. We will not impinge
on the jury’s assessment in this regard.
[15] Judgment affirmed.
[16] Bailey, J. and Bradford, J., concur.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 71A05-1601-CR-175 | June 14, 2016 Page 7 of 7