Billy McCaslin v. State of Indiana (mem. dec.) ( 2020 )

MEMORANDUM DECISION
Pursuant to Ind. Appellate Rule 65(D), FILED
this Memorandum Decision shall not be Jan 23 2020, 10:04 am
regarded as precedent or cited before any
CLERK
court except for the purpose of establishing Indiana Supreme Court
Court of Appeals
the defense of res judicata, collateral and Tax Court
estoppel, or the law of the case.
ATTORNEY FOR APPELLANT ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE
Kevin Wild Curtis T. Hill, Jr.
Indianapolis, Indiana Attorney General of Indiana
Zachary R. Griffin
Deputy Attorney General
Indianapolis, Indiana
IN THE
COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA
Billy McCaslin, January 23, 2020
Appellant-Defendant, Court of Appeals Case No.
19A-CR-1929
v. Appeal from the Marion Superior
Court
State of Indiana, The Honorable Jennifer P.
Appellee-Plaintiff Harrison, Judge
Trial Court Cause No.
49G20-1803-F5-8600
Baker, Judge.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 19A-CR-1929 | January 23, 2020 Page 1 of 7
[1] Billy McCaslin appeals his convictions for Level 5 Felony Possession of
Methamphetamine1 and Class C Misdemeanor Possession of Paraphernalia, 2
arguing that the evidence is insufficient to support the convictions. Finding the
evidence sufficient, we affirm.
Facts
[2] In March 2018, McCaslin was on house arrest and was wearing a GPS ankle
bracelet. On March 9, 2018, Indianapolis Metropolitan Police Officers
Christopher Houdashelt and Dustin Carmack arrived at McCaslin’s home to
execute a warrant for his arrest. The woman who lived with McCaslin
answered the door and allowed the officers to come inside. They cleared all the
rooms in the home except for the front bedroom, which was locked. The
officers confirmed that McCaslin’s ankle bracelet was located in the bedroom,
and the woman who answered the door further confirmed that McCaslin was
inside. Officer Houdashelt requested that a K9 unit be dispatched to the house.
While awaiting the K9 unit, the officers gave dozens of verbal commands to
McCaslin to exit the bedroom; he did not respond.
[3] After the K9 unit arrived, officers kicked in the locked door. Officer
Houdashelt observed McCaslin “jump up off the ground” next to the bed. Tr.
Vol. II p. 109. The police dog entered and subdued McCaslin, who was then
1
Ind. Code § 35-48-4-6.1.
2
I.C. 35-48-4-8.3(b).
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 19A-CR-1929 | January 23, 2020 Page 2 of 7
handcuffed. Officer Carmack began to search McCaslin incident to arrest. The
officer observed a plastic baggie fall from McCaslin’s person onto the ground.
Laboratory testing later confirmed that the baggie held methamphetamine
residue. In the course of apprehending McCaslin, Officer Houdashelt observed
several items in plain view on top of a dresser, including a digital scale with
white residue, a straw, and a piece of glass with residue on it in the form of a
line.
[4] Based on the above details, the officers applied for, and were granted, a warrant
to search the house. In the bedroom, the officers observed men’s and women’s
clothing lying on the floor as well as photographs of McCaslin and the woman
who answered the door. On the dresser where Officer Houdashelt had
observed several items earlier, Officer Carmack found a baggie with a substance
later confirmed to be methamphetamine. The baggie and other items were
commingled on the dresser with other personal property and photographs.
Officer Carmack also found a smaller baggie on the floor next to where the
officers found McCaslin when they entered the room; the substance in that
baggie was later confirmed to be methamphetamine. Officers also found two
methamphetamine pipes in a laundry basket.
[5] On March 12, 2018, the State charged McCaslin with possession of
methamphetamine as a Level 5 and a Level 6 felony, Class A misdemeanor
resisting law enforcement, and Class C misdemeanor possession of
paraphernalia. The State later dismissed the Level 5 felony count but amended
the information to enhance the Level 6 felony count to a Level 5 because of a
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 19A-CR-1929 | January 23, 2020 Page 3 of 7
prior conviction. The State also alleged that McCaslin was an habitual
offender.
[6] McCaslin’s jury trial took place on July 1, 2019. After the State presented its
case-in-chief, the trial court granted McCaslin’s motion for a directed verdict on
the resisting law enforcement charge. Ultimately, the jury found McCaslin
guilty of Level 6 felony possession of methamphetamine and Class C
misdemeanor possession of paraphernalia. The trial court later found that the
State had met its burden with respect to the enhancement of the possession
charge to a Level 5 felony and to McCaslin’s status as an habitual offender.
The trial court sentenced McCaslin to an aggregate four-year term, enhanced by
four years because of his habitual offender status. McCaslin now appeals.
Discussion and Decision
[7] McCaslin’s sole argument on appeal is that the evidence is insufficient to
support the convictions. When reviewing the sufficiency of the evidence to
support a conviction, we must consider only the probative evidence and
reasonable inferences supporting the conviction and will neither assess witness
credibility nor reweigh the evidence. Drane v. State, 867 N.E.2d 144, 146 (Ind.
2007). We will affirm unless no reasonable factfinder could find the elements of
the crime proved beyond a reasonable doubt. Id.
[8] To convict McCaslin of Level 6 felony possession of methamphetamine (which
was elevated to a Level 5 felony based on a prior conviction, which he does not
dispute), the State was required to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that he,
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 19A-CR-1929 | January 23, 2020 Page 4 of 7
without a valid prescription, knowingly or intentionally possessed
methamphetamine. I.C. § 35-48-4-6.1(a). To convict McCaslin of Class C
misdemeanor possession of paraphernalia, the State was required to prove
beyond a reasonable doubt that he knowingly or intentionally possessed an
instrument, device, or other object that he intended to use for introducing into
his body a controlled substance. I.C. § 35-48-4-8.3(b).
[9] McCaslin argues that the evidence does not support a conclusion that he
actually or constructively possessed methamphetamine or paraphernalia.
Actual possession occurs when a person has direct physical control over the
item. E.g., Goffinet v. State, 775 N.E.2d 1227, 1230 (Ind. Ct. App. 2002).
[10] First, the evidence readily establishes that McCaslin actually possessed
methamphetamine. When the officer began to search him incident to arrest, a
baggie fell from his person to the floor. Laboratory testing later confirmed that
the baggie contained methamphetamine residue. The laboratory technician
explained that, while there was not enough methamphetamine to be weighed,
the testing confirmed that the methamphetamine was “a hundred percent
there.” Tr. Vol. II p. 234. The technician also confirmed that
“methamphetamine residue [is] methamphetamine.” Id. at 229. The statute
under which McCaslin was charged does not have a minimum amount that
must be possessed; consequently, the possession of any amount of
methamphetamine, no matter how residual, suffices. Therefore, the fact that
McCaslin had a baggie on his person containing methamphetamine residue is
sufficient to support his conviction for possession of methamphetamine.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 19A-CR-1929 | January 23, 2020 Page 5 of 7
[11] Constructive possession occurs when a person has the capability and intent to
maintain dominion and control over the item. E.g., Canfield v. State, 128 N.E.3d
563, 572 (Ind. Ct. App. 2019), trans. denied. The capability element of
constructive possession is met if the State shows “that the defendant is able to
reduce the controlled substance to the defendant’s personal possession.”
Goliday v. State, 708 N.E.2d 4, 6 (Ind. 1999). Proof of a possessory interest in
the premises in which the object is found is adequate to meet the capability
element. Id.
[12] The intent element is met if the State demonstrates the defendant’s knowledge
of the presence of the contraband. Canfield, 128 N.E.3d at 572. Where, as here,
control of the premises is non-exclusive, evidence of additional circumstances
pointing to the defendant’s knowledge of the presence of contraband
demonstrates intent. Id. These additional circumstances may include the
item’s proximity to the defendant, the location of contraband within the
defendant’s plain view, and the mingling of contraband with other items owned
by the defendant. Id. at 572-73.
[13] Here, McCaslin had a possessory interest in the premises. He lived in the
residence and slept in the bedroom in which the methamphetamine and
paraphernalia were found. In fact, he was the only person in the bedroom,
behind a locked door, between the time police arrived at the residence and the
time they forced their way into the room. Therefore, he was capable of
maintaining dominion and control over the items.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 19A-CR-1929 | January 23, 2020 Page 6 of 7
[14] With respect to intent, the paraphernalia on the dresser (including the scale,
straw, and piece of glass with a line of white powder), the baggie of
methamphetamine on the dresser, and the baggie of methamphetamine on the
bedroom floor were in plain view. They were also intermingled with
McCaslin’s other items, including McCaslin’s clothing, personal property, and
photographs. Moreover, one of the baggies of methamphetamine was on the
floor in the location where McCaslin was found when the officers forced their
way into the bedroom. These circumstances suffice to show that McCaslin had
the intent to maintain dominion and control over the items.
[15] McCaslin directs our attention to other circumstances that can establish the
intent element, arguing that those circumstances are not applicable here. This
is merely a request that we reweigh the evidence, which we may not do. And in
any event, to prove constructive possession, the State need not prove all
possible circumstances that can establish the intent element. E.g., Canfield, 128
N.E.3d at 572-73.
[16] In sum, we find that the evidence in the record establishes that McCaslin
constructively possessed methamphetamine and paraphernalia, meaning that
the evidence is sufficient to support his convictions.
[17] The judgment of the trial court is affirmed.
Riley, J., and Brown, J., concur.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 19A-CR-1929 | January 23, 2020 Page 7 of 7