Lavontae Lee v. State of Indiana (mem. dec.) ( 2020 )


Menu:
  • MEMORANDUM DECISION
    Pursuant to Ind. Appellate Rule 65(D),
    this Memorandum Decision shall not be                                          FILED
    regarded as precedent or cited before any                               Jul 28 2020, 10:38 am
    court except for the purpose of establishing                                   CLERK
    the defense of res judicata, collateral                                  Indiana Supreme Court
    Court of Appeals
    and Tax Court
    estoppel, or the law of the case.
    ATTORNEY FOR APPELLANT                                    ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE
    Clifford M. Robinson                                      Curtis T. Hill, Jr.
    The Law Office of                                         Attorney General of Indiana
    Clifford M. Robinson, LLC
    Josiah Swinney
    Rensselaer, Indiana                                       Deputy Attorney General
    Indianapolis, Indiana
    IN THE
    COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA
    Lavontae Lee,                                             July 28, 2020
    Appellant-Defendant,                                      Court of Appeals Case No.
    20A-CR-687
    v.                                                Appeal from the Newton Superior
    Court
    State of Indiana,                                         The Honorable Daniel J. Molter,
    Appellee-Plaintiff                                        Judge
    Trial Court Cause No.
    56D01-1706-F6-85
    Baker, Judge.
    Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 20A-CR-687 | July 28, 2020                     Page 1 of 7
    [1]   Lavontae Lee appeals his convictions for Level 6 Felony Resisting Law
    Enforcement,1 Class A Misdemeanor Dealing in Marijuana,2 Class B
    Misdemeanor Possession of Marijuana,3 and Class C Misdemeanor Reckless
    Driving.4 He argues that the trial court gave an erroneous jury instruction and
    that the evidence is insufficient to support his conviction for dealing in
    marijuana. Finding no error and sufficient evidence, we affirm.
    Facts
    [2]   On June 24, 2017, Newton County Sheriff’s Deputy Jack Fellmy was
    monitoring traffic on a portion of U.S. 41 on which the posted speed limit was
    sixty miles per hour. Deputy Fellmy observed an individual on a motorcycle,
    later identified as Lee, travelling together with a Dodge Charger. The deputy
    noted that the two vehicles were traveling the same speed, the motorcycle was
    right behind the Charger, and the motorcycle was “staying with” the other
    vehicle. Tr. Vol II. p. 34.
    [3]   Deputy Fellmy’s radar showed that the Charger was traveling eighty-eight miles
    per hour, so he initiated a traffic stop of both vehicles. Both vehicles stopped,
    but as soon as the deputy stepped out of his vehicle, Lee drove away on the
    1
    Ind. Code § 35-44.1-3-1(a)(3).
    2
    Ind. Code § 35-48-4-10(a)(2).
    3
    I.C. 35-48-4-11(a)(1).
    4
    Ind. Code § 9-21-8-52(a)(1).
    Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 20A-CR-687 | July 28, 2020   Page 2 of 7
    motorcycle. A chase ensued, and Lee reached speeds as high as 130 miles per
    hour. Eventually, Lee lost control of his motorcycle in a ditch. He struggled
    with the officer who approached him, but was eventually contained and
    arrested.
    [4]   Another deputy arrived and smelled the odor of raw marijuana emanating from
    the motorcycle. Inside of a compartment directly under the seat, the deputy
    found three separately packaged small baggies containing marijuana and
    another, larger bag of a substance that tested positive for THC. A deputy later
    testified that in his experience, packaging marijuana this way usually indicated
    that it was “for distribution[.]”
    Id. at 62.
    The small baggies had Nike Swoosh
    symbols on the outside. Lee told the arresting officer that he had been driving
    to the “US 41 Dragstrip” before he was stopped.
    Id. at 47. [5]
      Back at the initial stop, the driver of the Charger told the deputy that he had
    been on his way to the “US 41 Motor Speedway[.]”
    Id. at 32.
    That driver was
    carrying several small baggies of marijuana. The small bags had Nike Swoosh
    symbols on the outside and were “consistent with dealing illegal drugs.”
    Id. The Charger also
    held a “bulk bag” of marijuana and a large sum of cash.
    Id. [6]
      On June 30, 2019, the State charged Lee with Level 6 felony resisting law
    enforcement, Class A misdemeanor dealing in marijuana, Class B misdemeanor
    possession of marijuana, and Class C misdemeanor reckless driving. A jury
    found Lee guilty as charged on October 28, 2019. On March 2, 2020, the trial
    court sentenced Lee to an aggregate eighteen-month term. Lee now appeals.
    Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 20A-CR-687 | July 28, 2020   Page 3 of 7
    Discussion and Decision
    I. Jury Instruction
    [7]   First, Lee argues that the trial court gave a fundamentally erroneous jury
    instruction. Instruction of the jury is left to the sound discretion of the trial
    court and we will reverse only if a questioned instruction is erroneous and the
    instructions as a whole misstate the law or otherwise mislead the jury. Munford
    v. State, 
    923 N.E.2d 11
    , 14 (Ind. Ct. App. 2010).
    [8]   The instruction at issue stated as follows: “[t]he flight of a person immediately
    after the commission [sic] for which he is charged, if there was such flight, is a
    circumstance which may be considered by you in connection with all the other
    evidence to aid you in determining his guilt or innocence.” Tr. Vol. II p. 81.
    Lee’s counsel had stated “[n]o objection” in response to this instruction.
    Id. at 71.
    Therefore, Lee must show that the instruction was fundamentally
    erroneous. The fundamental error exception is extremely narrow and applies
    only when the error constitutes a blatant violation of basic principles, the harm
    or potential for harm is substantial, and the resulting error denies the defendant
    fundamental due process and renders a fair trial impossible. Halliburton v. State,
    
    1 N.E.3d 670
    , 678 (Ind. 2013).
    [9]   Lee directs our attention to Dill v. State, 
    741 N.E.2d 1230
    (Ind. 2001). In that
    case, our Supreme Court considered an “inherently contradictory” jury
    instruction that “simultaneously inform[ed] the jury that a person’s flight after
    the commission of a crime is ‘not proof of guilt’ but yet is ‘evidence of
    Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 20A-CR-687 | July 28, 2020   Page 4 of 7
    consciousness of guilt’ and ‘may be considered.’”
    Id. at 1232.
    Ultimately, the
    Dill Court found that the “flight instruction [was] confusing, unduly
    emphasize[d] specific evidence, and [was] misleading” and held that it was
    erroneous to give the instruction.
    Id. at 1233.
    In the end, however, the Court
    concluded that the error did not require reversal because “a reasonable jury
    could not properly have acquitted the defendant and would have rendered a
    guilty verdict even if the erroneous flight instruction had not been given.”
    Id. at 1234. [10]
      Initially, we note that the instruction in this case is dissimilar enough from the
    confusing instruction in Dill that we do not believe that it was erroneous. Even
    if there was error, however, we would find that the error was harmless given the
    evidence in the record supporting Lee’s guilt:
    • Lee, on his motorcycle, and the other driver, in the Charger, were driving
    in tandem. They were speeding and heading to the same destination.
    • When Lee was finally stopped and arrested, deputies found a large bag of
    marijuana and several small baggies of marijuana that had a Nike
    swoosh on the outside. A deputy testified that this method of packaging
    indicated that the substance was intended for distribution.
    • The driver of the Charger was likewise found to have small baggies of
    marijuana bearing the Nike swoosh. The Charger also held a bulk bag of
    marijuana and a large sum of cash.
    As in Dill, given this record, even if the erroneous flight instruction had not
    been given, we believe that a reasonable jury could not properly have acquitted
    Lee and would have rendered a guilty verdict. Therefore, we decline to reverse
    on this basis.
    Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 20A-CR-687 | July 28, 2020   Page 5 of 7
    II. Sufficiency
    [11]   Next, Lee argues that the evidence supporting his conviction for Class A
    misdemeanor dealing in marijuana is insufficient. When considering a claim of
    insufficient evidence, we will consider only the probative evidence and
    reasonable inferences supporting the verdict. McHenry v. State, 
    820 N.E.2d 124
    ,
    126 (Ind. 2005). We will neither assess witness credibility nor reweigh the
    evidence, and will affirm if the probative evidence and reasonable inferences
    drawn from that evidence could have allowed a reasonable factfinder to find the
    defendant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.
    Id. [12]
      To convict Lee of Class A misdemeanor dealing in marijuana, the State was
    required to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Lee possessed marijuana,
    with the intent to deliver it. I.C. § 35-48-4-10(a)(2). Lee argues that there is
    insufficient evidence establishing that he had the intent to deliver the marijuana.
    “Intent, being a mental state, can only be established by considering the
    behavior of the relevant actor, the surrounding circumstances, and the
    reasonable inferences to be drawn from them.” Davis v. State, 
    791 N.E.2d 266
    ,
    270 (Ind. Ct. App. 2003).
    [13]   Here, the evidence in the record shows that Lee possessed three small baggies of
    marijuana with Nike swooshes on them and a bulk bag of marijuana. He was
    riding to a racetrack in tandem with another individual, whose vehicle held
    Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 20A-CR-687 | July 28, 2020   Page 6 of 7
    marijuana in the same packaging and a large sum of cash.5 Lee also led police
    on a high-speed chase after he was initially pulled over.
    [14]   A deputy testified that, based on his training and experience, marijuana
    packaged in the way it was found in the motorcycle and Charger supports a
    conclusion that Lee intended to deliver the marijuana rather than use it himself.
    See White v. State, 
    772 N.E.2d 408
    , 413 (Ind. 2002) (finding that separate plastic
    baggies containing crack cocaine supported inference that defendant intended
    to deliver the drugs). Additionally, the bulk bag of marijuana, Lee’s proximity
    to another driver with similar contraband heading to the same location, and
    Lee’s flight from police supported an inference that Lee intended to deliver the
    drugs. A reasonable factfinder could conclude, based on this evidence, that Lee
    was guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. Lee’s arguments to the contrary amount
    to requests that we reweigh the evidence, which we may not and will not do.
    The evidence is sufficient.
    [15]   The judgment of the trial court is affirmed.
    Bailey, J., and Vaidik, J., concur.
    5
    Lee argues that evidence related to the Charger’s driver implicated protections afforded to co-defendants in
    joint trials under the Confrontation Clause. Initially, we note that Lee did not object on this basis below.
    Furthermore, there was no joint trial in this case, nor were out-of-court statements made by the other driver
    admitted into evidence. Lee had a full opportunity to cross-examine the detective who testified about the
    situation involving the Charger. Therefore, he is not entitled to relief on this basis.
    Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 20A-CR-687 | July 28, 2020                        Page 7 of 7