Tony McMiller v. State of Indiana ( 2017 )

FILED
Dec 18 2017, 11:01 am
CLERK
Indiana Supreme Court
Court of Appeals
and Tax Court
ATTORNEY FOR APPELLANT ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE
Barbara J. Simmons Curtis T. Hill, Jr.
Oldenburg, Indiana Attorney General of Indiana
Angela N. Sanchez
Supervising Deputy Attorney
General
Indianapolis, Indiana
IN THE
COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA
Tony McMiller, December 18, 2017
Appellant-Defendant, Court of Appeals Case No.
49A02-1706-CR-1192
v. Appeal from the Marion Superior
Court
State of Indiana, The Honorable Linda Brown,
Appellee-Plaintiff Judge
Trial Court Cause No.
49G10-1612-CM-47917
May, Judge.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 49A02-1706-CR-1192 | December 18, 2017 Page 1 of 9
[1] Tony McMiller appeals his convictions for Class A misdemeanor theft 1 and
Class B misdemeanor disorderly conduct. 2 He argues the State did not present
sufficient evidence to prove he committed Class A misdemeanor theft because it
did not prove he had the intent to deprive Scotty’s Brewhouse of the value of
the food and drink he consumed. He argues the State did not present sufficient
evidence to prove he committed Class B misdemeanor disorderly conduct
because it did not prove he was so unreasonably loud as to disturb others in the
restaurant. We reverse in part and affirm in part.
Facts and Procedural History
[2] On December 13, 2016, McMiller and Karri 3 Garcia spent the day together,
purchasing multiple items with Garcia’s husband’s credit card. McMiller and
Garcia went to Scotty’s Brewhouse, ordered food and drink, and ate the food
and drink they ordered. When the bill was presented, Garcia tried to pay with
her husband’s credit card, but it was declined. The manager of the restaurant
was called to the table and learned McMiller and Garcia could not pay the bill.
The manager called the police.
1
Ind. Code § 35-43-4-2(a) (2014).
2
Ind. Code § 35-45-1-3(a)(2) (2014).
3
The briefs and the transcript spell Garcia’s name differently, but the charging information spells her name
as indicated in this opinion.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 49A02-1706-CR-1192 | December 18, 2017 Page 2 of 9
[3] Officer Justin Musser arrived at the scene and Officer Christopher Pickerrell
arrived shortly thereafter. After learning Garcia’s credit card had been
declined, Officer Musser asked McMiller if he was going to pay the bill, and
McMiller offered his SSI debit card, which was also declined. McMiller said he
called his sister and she told him she would come to the restaurant and pay the
bill after she got off work. She did not do so. Garcia and McMiller attempted
to get other restaurant patrons to pay their bill, but no one would pay it.
[4] After approximately one hour, Officers placed McMiller and Garcia under
arrest. Because it was cold outside, Officer Musser sat McMiller on a bench
inside the restaurant while he waited for the wagon to arrive to transport
McMiller to the Marion County Jail.
[5] McMiller was “talking loudly, upset obviously because he was going to jail.”
(Tr. at 28.) He also started “bothering the patrons that were sitting in the booth
behind them trying to get them to engage in conversation and pay for his bill.”
(Id.) Officer Musser asked him to stop bothering the people in the booth, but
McMiller persisted.
[6] The State charged McMiller with Class A misdemeanor theft, Class A
misdemeanor resisting law enforcement, 4 and Class B misdemeanor disorderly
conduct. On May 9, 2017, the trial court held a bench trial. At the end of the
bench trial, the trial court found McMiller guilty of Class A misdemeanor theft
4
Ind. Code § 35-44.1-3-1(a)(1) (2016).
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 49A02-1706-CR-1192 | December 18, 2017 Page 3 of 9
and Class B misdemeanor disorderly conduct. The trial court sentenced
McMiller to concurrent sentences of 365 days, with 315 days suspended to
unsupervised probation, for theft and 180 days, with 130 days suspended to
unsupervised probation, for disorderly conduct.
Discussion and Decision
[7] When reviewing sufficiency of the evidence in support of a conviction, we will
consider only probative evidence in the light most favorable to the trial court’s
judgment. Binkley v. State, 654 N.E.2d 736, 737 (Ind. 2007), reh’g denied. The
decision comes before us with a presumption of legitimacy, and we will not
substitute our judgment for that of the fact-finder. Id. We do not assess the
credibility of the witnesses or reweigh the evidence in determining whether the
evidence is sufficient. Drane v. State, 867 N.E.2d 144, 146 (Ind. 2007). Reversal
is appropriate only when no reasonable fact-finder could find the elements of
the crime proven beyond a reasonable doubt. Id. Thus, the evidence is not
required to overcome every reasonable hypothesis of innocence and is sufficient
if an inference may reasonably be drawn from it to support the verdict. Id. at
147.
I. Class A Misdemeanor Theft
[8] “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 A misdemeanor.” Ind. Code § 35-43-
4-2(a) (2014). “A person engages in conduct ‘intentionally’ if, when he engages
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 49A02-1706-CR-1192 | December 18, 2017 Page 4 of 9
in the conduct, it is his conscious objective to do so.” Ind. Code § 35-41-2-2(a)
(1977). “A person engages in conduct ‘knowingly’ if, when he engages in the
conduct, he is aware of a high probability he is doing so.” Ind. Code § 35-41-2-
2(b) (1977). The mens rea element of a crime “may be proven by circumstantial
evidence alone, and may be inferred from the facts and circumstances of each
case.” Baxter v. State, 891 N.E.2d 110, 121 (Ind. Ct. App. 2008).
[9] The State presented evidence that McMiller and Garcia consumed food and
drink from Scotty’s Brewhouse and that payment was not made for that food
and drink. However, the State did not present evidence that, at any time during
the incident, McMiller behaved in a way that could suggest he consumed the
food and drink with an intent to deprive Scotty’s Brewhouse of the value
thereof.
[10] McMiller argues he was “in the wrong place at the wrong time with the wrong
person.” (Br. of Appellant at 11.) He testified he went to Scotty’s Brewhouse at
Garcia’s invitation and she told him she would pay with the credit card they
had been using all day. Thus, he claims, he did not have the requisite intent to
commit Class A misdemeanor theft when he exerted control over Scotty’s food
and drink because he never intended to deprive Scotty’s of the value of its food
or drink. Our courts have long reversed “on insufficiency grounds, convictions
that were based merely upon the defendant being in the ‘right place at the
wrong time.’” McMahal v. State, 609 N.E.2d 1175, 1178 (Ind. Ct. App. 1993).
This case is one such predicament.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 49A02-1706-CR-1192 | December 18, 2017 Page 5 of 9
[11] After Garcia’s credit card was declined, McMiller attempted to use his SSI debit
card to pay for the meal, but it was declined. Officer Pickerrell testified he
learned on the scene that McMiller “thought Ms. Garcia was taking McMiller
out to dinner[.]” (Tr. at 20.) Officer Pickerrell admitted “it was fair to assume
that if a person is being taken out to dinner they do not think that they have to
pay for it[.]” (Id.) Officer Pickerrell and McMiller testified the card Garcia
submitted for payment worked properly earlier in the day.
[12] McMiller called his sister, who indicated she would pay the bill, but she did
not. McMiller asked other patrons of the restaurant to pay the bill, and they did
not. Officer Musser testified another patron came up to him and told him they
would like to pay for McMiller and Garcia’s meal, but they were not permitted
to do so. Thus, the bill was not paid.
[13] Multiple witnesses testified McMiller was calm throughout the incident until he
was arrested and did not make an attempt to leave at any time. He “wasn’t
refusing to pay – he did not have the ability to pay and believed he had made
other arrangements for payment.” (Br. of Appellant at 12). This is unlike the
facts in Bowman v. State, 468 N.E.2d 1064 (Ind. Ct. App. 1984), where Bowman
was convicted of theft after attempting to leave a store with a saw for which he
did not pay. We affirmed Bowman’s conviction for theft, observing that in
addition to attempting to leave the store with the saw by “walking briskly,” id.
at 1066, toward the exit, Bowman provided a receipt for the wrong date,
claimed his companion paid for it, and “insisting he had been in the catalog
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 49A02-1706-CR-1192 | December 18, 2017 Page 6 of 9
department and had not realized they came inside.” Id. Such deception is not
present in this case.
[14] Further, in searching for a case analogous to the facts before us, we found a
dearth of cases wherein a person was convicted of theft when the person ate a
meal and was then unable to pay for the meal, but remained at the restaurant
attempting to find a way to pay. More common are defendants who leave
without trying to pay for the food or drinks consumed. See, e.g., People v.
McDonald, 689 N.Y.S.2d 600, 601 (N.Y. 1999) (defendant convicted of theft
when he “ordered alcoholic beverages, drank them, and left without paying the
bill ($126.33)”). McMiller did not leave or even attempt to leave; instead, he
tried to obtain the money to pay the bill.
[15] While it is not our role to reweigh the evidence or judge the credibility of
witnesses, we also cannot sustain a conviction for a crime the State did not
prove. See Martin v. State, 157 Ind. App. 380, 385, 300 N.E.2d 128, 131 (1973)
(while a conviction may rest on circumstantial evidence, we must be careful to
review the record as to not place in jeopardy “the liberty of many innocent
persons”). Here, the State presented sufficient evidence McMiller consumed
food and drink for which he thereafter could not pay, and thus McMiller
deprived Scotty’s Brewhouse of the value of the food and drink. See Ind. Code
§ 35-43-4-2(a) (elements of theft). However, the State has not proven McMiller
had the intent to deprive Scotty’s of the value when he consumed the food and
drink. Therefore, we must reverse. See Umphrey v. State, 63 Ind. 223, 226
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 49A02-1706-CR-1192 | December 18, 2017 Page 7 of 9
(1878) (intent to deprive a person of their property must be present to convict
for theft).
Class B Misdemeanor Disorderly Conduct
[16] To prove McMiller committed Class B misdemeanor disorderly conduct, the
State had to provide sufficient evidence McMiller (1) recklessly, knowingly, or
intentionally (2) made “unreasonable noise” and continued “to do so after
being asked to stop.” Ind. Code § 35-45-1-3(a)(2) (2014). McMiller argues the
State did not prove he disturbed other patrons. He also claims that “any noise
made by him in these circumstances was not unreasonable[.]” (Br. of Appellant
at 13.) His arguments are requests for us to reweigh the evidence and judge the
credibility of witnesses, which we cannot do. See Drane, 867 N.E.2d at 146
(appellate court cannot reweigh evidence or judge the credibility of witnesses).
[17] The State presented evidence McMiller was “talking loudly, upset obviously
because he was going to jail.” (Tr. at 28.) In addition, he was “disrupting the
booth next to . . . where he was sitting.” (Id. at 33.) Officer Musser testified
McMiller was
talking loudly to get their attention and then asking them to help
him out and pay his bill and the table . . . ignoring [sic] him and
he kept trying to talk louder to get their attention . . . I said “hey
leave them alone, you know they are here enjoying their dinner”
and he kept going and kept going. And finally you know, the
people engaged and it was like you know we don’t have the - we
are not going to help you.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 49A02-1706-CR-1192 | December 18, 2017 Page 8 of 9
(Id. at 33-4.) We conclude the State presented sufficient evidence McMiller
committed Class B misdemeanor disorderly conduct. See Martin v. State, 499
N.E.2d 273, 274 (Ind. Ct. App. 1986) (evidence sufficient to support conviction
of disorderly conduct when Martin spoke in a “very loud voice” in a public
place where others had gathered and continued to do so after being asked to
stop).
Conclusion
[18] The State did not present sufficient evidence McMiller consumed food and
drink with an intent to deprive Scotty’s Brewhouse of the value therefor and
thus the evidence was insufficient to prove McMiller committed Class A
misdemeanor theft. However, the State presented sufficient evidence McMiller
committed Class B misdemeanor disorderly conduct. Accordingly, we reverse
McMiller’s theft conviction and affirm his disorderly conduct conviction.
[19] Reversed in part and affirmed in part.
Vaidik, C.J., and Altice, J., concur.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 49A02-1706-CR-1192 | December 18, 2017 Page 9 of 9