Nikia Hayes v. State of Indiana (mem. dec.) ( 2016 )

FILED
Aug 04 2016, 9:55 am
MEMORANDUM DECISION
CLERK
Indiana Supreme Court
Pursuant to Ind. Appellate Rule 65(D), Court of Appeals
and Tax Court
this Memorandum Decision shall not be
regarded as precedent or cited before any
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
Ellen M. O’Connor Gregory F. Zoeller
Marion County Public Defender Attorney General of Indiana
Indianapolis, Indiana
Christina D. Pace
Deputy Attorney General
Indianapolis, Indiana
IN THE
COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA
Nikia Hayes, August 4, 2016
Appellant-Defendant, Court of Appeals Cause No.
49A04-1512-CR-2197
v. Appeal from the Marion County
Superior Court
State of Indiana, The Honorable William J. Nelson,
Appellee-Plaintiff. Judge
The Honorable Shannon Logsdon.
Commissioner
Trial Court Cause No.
49G18-1406-FD-32036
Barnes, Judge.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 49A04-1512-CR-2197 | August 4, 2016 Page 1 of 5
Case Summary
[1] Nikia Hayes appeals her conviction for Class D felony theft. We affirm.
Issue
[2] Hayes raises one issue, which we restate as whether the evidence is sufficient to
support Hayes’s conviction for Class D felony theft.
Facts
[3] In 2014, Hayes was part of a company car pool. Hayes, her child’s father
Dominique Crane, Dominique’s brothers Derrick and Desmond Crane, and
Aaron Dixon all worked the 4:00 p.m. to 12:00 a.m. shift at PTG Logistics in
Plainfield. Hayes drove her truck and paid for food and cigarettes for the men
while on work breaks. When Dixon began riding in the car pool, he had a
brief, verbal discussion with Hayes and Dominique about paying $20 per week
for gas and snacks. Hayes’s truck was later damaged in an accident, so
Desmond took over driving the car pool.
[4] On June 13, 2014, Desmond stopped at a gas station so everyone could cash
their paychecks. Dixon bought a pack of cigarettes and gave it to Hayes.
Hayes told Dixon he should pay her sixty dollars for the three days she drove
the carpool. Dixon paid Hayes twenty dollars, but Hayes did not believe it was
sufficient. After leaving the gas station, Hayes and Dixon began to argue and
curse at each other. Dixon asked Desmond to pull over because he intended to
walk home. Desmond pulled the car over. Hayes and Dixon’s verbal argument
then turned physical when Hayes leaned over the seat and punched Dixon.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 49A04-1512-CR-2197 | August 4, 2016 Page 2 of 5
After Desmond exited the car, Hayes held down the driver’s seat to prevent
Dixon from pushing the seat up to exit the car. Hayes told Dixon that “[he’s]
gonna give her the money or [he’s] not going nowhere.” Tr. p. 15. Dixon was
able to “fight his way out of the car.” Id. at 16. After Dixon exited the car,
Dominque held him in a bear hug while Hayes hit him in the eye over thirty
times. Hayes threatened to take Dixon’s entire paycheck, so Dixon finally gave
Hayes the additional forty dollars. Once Dixon gave Hayes the money, the
beating stopped. As a result of the beating, Dixon suffered a scratch to his
cornea and a black eye. Dixon then walked home and called the police.
[5] The state charged Hayes with Class D felony theft and Class A misdemeanor
battery resulting in bodily injury. In a bench trial, Hayes was found guilty as
charged. Hayes was subsequently sentenced to 730 days for the theft
conviction, with 724 days suspended, and 365 days for the battery conviction,
with 359 days suspended. These sentences were to run concurrently. Hayes
now appeals.
Analysis
[6] Hayes argues that there is insufficient evidence to support her conviction for
Class D felony theft. She does not challenge the battery conviction. When
reviewing the sufficiency of the evidence, “appellate courts must consider only
the probative evidence and reasonable inferences supporting the verdict.” Drane
v. State, 867 N.E.2d 144, 146 (Ind. 2007). It is the fact finder’s role to assess the
credibility of the witnesses and weigh the evidence. Id. Appellate courts must
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 49A04-1512-CR-2197 | August 4, 2016 Page 3 of 5
consider conflicting evidence most favorably to the trial court’s ruling and
affirm the conviction unless “no reasonable fact-finder could find the elements
of the crime proven beyond a reasonable doubt.” Id.
[7] At the time of this incident, Indiana Code Section 35-43-4-2(a), provided that,
“A person who knowingly or intentionally exerts unauthorized control over
property of another person, with intent to deprive the other person of any part
of its value or use, commits theft, a Class D felony.”
[8] Here, Hayes beat Dixon to force him to give her money. Dixon refused to give
Hayes the forty dollars she wanted and only gave Hayes the money to stop the
beating. Hayes took Dixon’s money and converted it to her own use when she
put it in her pocket and walked away. Hayes argues that she did not exert
unauthorized control over Dixon’s money because it was a valid debt.
However, a person cannot use violence to force another person to pay a debt.
[9] Hayes intentionally took Dixon’s money, against his will, to deprive him of its
value or use. This constituted theft.
[10] Given that Hayes intentionally exerted unauthorized control over Dixon’s
property, with the intent to deprive Dixon of any part of its value or use, we
conclude there is sufficient evidence to support Hayes’s conviction for Class D
felony theft.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 49A04-1512-CR-2197 | August 4, 2016 Page 4 of 5
Conclusion
[11] The evidence is sufficient to support Hayes’s conviction for Class D felony
theft. We affirm.
[12] Affirmed.
Vaidik, C.J., and Mathias, J., concur.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 49A04-1512-CR-2197 | August 4, 2016 Page 5 of 5