Gregory Wayne Parks v. State of Indiana , 113 N.E.3d 269 ( 2018 )

FILED
Oct 18 2018, 5:56 am
CLERK
Indiana Supreme Court
Court of Appeals
and Tax Court
ATTORNEY FOR APPELLANT ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE
Susan D. Rayl Curtis T. Hill, Jr.
Smith Rayl Law Office, LLC Attorney General of Indiana
Indianapolis, Indiana
Lyubov Gore
Laura Anderson
Deputy Attorneys General
Indianapolis, Indiana
IN THE
COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA
Gregory Wayne Parks, October 18, 2018
Appellant-Defendant, Court of Appeals Case No.
18A-CR-151
v. Appeal from the Marion Superior
Court
State of Indiana, The Honorable James Snyder,
Appellee-Plaintiff Commissioner
Trial Court Cause No.
49G20-1606-F4-22060
May, Judge.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 18A-CR-151 | October 18, 2018 Page 1 of 9
[1] Gregory Wayne Parks (“Gregory”) appeals his convictions of Level 4 felony
unlawful possession of a firearm by a serious violent felon, 1 Level 5 felony
dealing in marijuana, 2 and two counts of Level 6 felony possession of a
controlled substance. 3 Gregory argues the State did not present sufficient
evidence he constructively possessed the gun and drugs found in a bag behind
the driver’s seat of the truck in which Gregory was riding. We affirm.
Facts and Procedural History 4
[2] At approximately 10:45 p.m. on June 5, 2016, Indianapolis Metropolitan Police
Department Officers Matthew Plummer and Austin Birch initiated a traffic stop
after they observed a truck without a driver’s side headlight. When the officers
approached the stopped truck, the driver, Michelle Parks (“Michelle”),
attempted to exit the truck. The officers ordered the occupants to stay inside
the truck but, as the officers were issuing these commands, Gregory attempted
to exit the passenger side of the truck. After hearing the officers’ commands,
both Michelle and Gregory complied and re-entered the truck.
1
Ind. Code § 35-47-4-5(c) (2014).
2
Ind. Code § 35-48-4-10(d) (2014).
3
Ind. Code § 35-48-4-7(b) (2014).
4
We held oral argument on this case on September 28, 2018, at North Decatur High School. We thank
school staff and students for their hospitality and counsel for their able presentations.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 18A-CR-151 | October 18, 2018 Page 2 of 9
[3] As Officer Plummer approached the truck, he detected an odor of raw
marijuana. Once he made contact with Gregory, Officer Plummer observed
two marijuana joints positioned next to a live nine-millimeter round of
ammunition on the center console in plain view. Officer Plummer advised
Gregory and Michelle of the reason for the stop, asked for their identifications,
and asked to whom the truck belonged. After submitting their identification,
both Gregory and Michelle stated simultaneously that the truck was “ours” and
they were “getting mechanical work [done] to the truck.” (Tr. Vol. II at 12.)
[4] Officer Plummer returned to his vehicle and ran Gregory’s and Michelle’s
identification to confirm their identities. He learned neither had a valid driver’s
license. Based on this lack of driver’s licenses, coupled with the odor of raw
marijuana, Officer Plummer and Officer Birch handcuffed Gregory and
Michelle and searched their truck.
[5] In addition to the marijuana joints and ammunition Officer Plummer initially
observed on the center console, he found another joint on the front passenger
seat. Behind the passenger seat, he found mail addressed to Gregory and
Michelle. Behind the driver’s seat, Officer Plummer found a black messenger
bag on top of a gas can. He opened the flap of the bag and found a “brick of
marijuana inside of that bag.” (Id. at 14.) Officer Plummer then found a Smith
and Wesson nine-millimeter handgun in the side pocket of the same bag.
[6] After finding the gun, Officer Plummer stopped his search and placed Gregory
and Michelle under arrest. Officer Plummer then called another officer to the
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 18A-CR-151 | October 18, 2018 Page 3 of 9
scene to process the gun. While they waited for that officer to arrive, Michelle
indicated she did not know anything about the bag or its contents; Gregory
similarly stated he did not know anything about the contents of the bag and
said, “if he didn’t know about it, he shouldn’t be arrested.” (Id. at 15.) Officer
Brycen Garner arrived and processed the gun.
[7] Officer Plummer then continued his search of the black messenger bag. He
located a digital scale with methamphetamine residue on it; two smaller baggies
containing small amounts of marijuana; and a baggie containing several smaller
baggies, four tablets of Diazepam, which is a Schedule IV controlled substance,
and eighteen tablets of Clonazepam, which is a Schedule IV controlled
substance. Officer Plummer also searched Gregory incident to his arrest and
found $390.00 in small denominations and a cell phone in Gregory’s pocket.
[8] On June 8, 2016, the State charged Gregory with Level 4 felony unlawful
possession of a firearm by a serious violent felon, Level 5 felony dealing in
marijuana, Level 5 felony possession of methamphetamine, 5 and two counts of
Level 6 felony possession of a controlled substance. Gregory was tried before
the bench on December 11, 2017, and the trial court found him guilty on all
charges except the Level 5 felony possession of methamphetamine. On January
4, 2018, the trial court sentenced Gregory to an aggregate sentence of nine years
incarcerated.
5
Ind. Code § 35-48-4-6.1(b) (2014).
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 18A-CR-151 | October 18, 2018 Page 4 of 9
Discussion and Decision
[9] When reviewing sufficiency of evidence to support a conviction, we consider
only the probative evidence and reasonable inferences supporting the trial
court’s decision. Drane v. State, 867 N.E.2d 144, 146 (Ind. 2007). It is the fact-
finder’s role, and not ours, to assess witness credibility and weigh the evidence
to determine whether it is sufficient to support a conviction. Id. To preserve
this structure, when we are confronted with conflicting evidence, we consider it
most favorably to the trial court’s ruling. Id. We affirm a conviction unless no
reasonable fact-finder could find the elements of the crime proven beyond a
reasonable doubt. Id. It is therefore not necessary that the evidence overcome
every reasonable hypothesis of innocence; rather, the evidence is sufficient if an
inference reasonably may be drawn from it to support the trial court’s decision.
Id. at 147.
[10] Possession can be actual or constructive. Lampkins v. State, 682 N.E.2d 1268,
1275 (Ind. 1997), modified on reh’g on other grounds, 685 N.E.2d 698 (Ind. 1997).
As Gregory did not have actual possession of the contraband in question, we
must determine whether the State proved he constructively possessed it. For
the State to prove constructive possession, it must prove the defendant had the
intent and capability to maintain dominion and control over the contraband.
Id. To prove intent to maintain dominion and control, there must be additional
circumstances supporting the inference of intent. Id.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 18A-CR-151 | October 18, 2018 Page 5 of 9
[11] Proof of dominion and control, and therefore knowledge, of contraband has
been found through a variety of means: (1) incriminating statements by the
defendant, (2) attempted flight or furtive gestures, (3) location of substances like
drugs in settings that suggest manufacturing, (4) proximity of the contraband to
the defendant, (5) location of the contraband within the defendant’s plain view,
and (6) the mingling of the contraband with other items owned by the
defendant. Henderson v. State, 715 N.E.2d 833, 836 (Ind. 1999). Where a
passenger is charged with possession, the evidence is more likely to be sufficient
when the passenger could see the contraband and was in the best position to
access it, and when no evidence clearly indicates it belonged to or was under
the control of another occupant of the vehicle. Deshazier v. State, 877 N.E.2d
200, 208 (Ind. Ct. App. 2007), trans. denied. “When constructive possession is
alleged, the State must demonstrate the defendant’s knowledge of the
contraband.” Bradshaw v. State, 818 N.E.2d 59, 63 (Ind. Ct. App. 2004).
Gregory argues the State did not provide sufficient evidence Gregory knew the
contraband was in the vehicle. We disagree.
[12] Regarding any incriminating statements Gregory made, upon arrest, he told
officers that “if he didn’t know about it, he shouldn’t be arrested.” (Tr. Vol. II
at 15.) The State argues this statement, “[t]hough not an incriminating
statement at first blush, demonstrated [Gregory’s] underlying assumption that
denying ownership might help him avoid arrest and punishment. His statement
was a calculated choice of phrasing that lends itself more to an inference of guilt
than an honest denial of ownership.” (Br. of Appellee at 15.)
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 18A-CR-151 | October 18, 2018 Page 6 of 9
[13] Regarding the location of the black messenger bag behind the driver’s seat,
Gregory’s position in the passenger’s seat indicated he could easily reach the
black messenger bag. See Holmes v. State, 785 N.E.2d 658, 661 (Ind. Ct. App.
2003) (Holmes constructively possessed marijuana found in a vinyl bag
resembling a diaper bag on the floor behind the driver’s seat because it was
within his reach). When considering the location of the drugs in a setting that
would suggest manufacturing, we note the black messenger bag contained a
large brick of marijuana, as well as multiple small baggies, which Officer
Plummer testified suggested repackaging of contraband for sale. See Ind. Code
§ 35-48-1-18(2)(A) (2014) (defining “manufacturing” in relevant part as
“packaging and repackaging”). Additionally, Officer Plummer found $390 in
small bills in Gregory’s pocket, which Officer Plummer testified was indicative
of dealing. (Id. at 49-50.)
[14] The State contends also “it is difficult to imagine how [Gregory] could not have
been aware of the presence of the contraband in light of the strong odor of
marijuana emanating from the vehicle.” (Br. of Appellee at 16.) The State
directs us to Corrao v. State, 154 Ind. App. 525, 290 N.E.2d 484 (1972), in which
our court imputed knowledge of marijuana found in the trunk of a vehicle to
the vehicle’s driver and the vehicle’s owner who was a passenger based on the
smell of raw marijuana coming from the vehicle and their possessory interests
in the vehicle. Similarly here, Gregory indicated a possessory interest in the
truck when he answered “ours” simultaneously with Michele when asked to
whom the truck belonged. (Tr. Vol. II at 12.)
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 18A-CR-151 | October 18, 2018 Page 7 of 9
[15] Finally, the items located in plain view, the joints and 9mm bullet, link Gregory
with the contraband and 9mm handgun found in the black messenger bag. In
Lampkins, 682 N.E.2d at 1275, our Indiana Supreme Court held Lampkins’
proximity to contraband, there a Tylenol bottle containing crack cocaine,
combined with other factors, proved Lampkins constructively possessed the
contraband. Id. Further, in Woods v. State, 471 N.E.2d 691 (Ind. 1984), reh’g
denied, our Indiana Supreme Court held the presence of ammunition matching
the gun found in the vehicle, combined with other factors, proved Woods
constructively possessed the gun in question. Id. at 694.
[16] Considering Gregory’s incriminating statements, the strong odor of raw
marijuana, the presence of items suggestive of manufacturing and dealing,
Gregory’s proximity to the black messenger bag containing the contraband, and
the items in plain view linking Gregory to the contraband, we hold the State
presented sufficient evidence he had the ability and intent to possess the black
messenger bag and its contents, and thus the State proved Gregory
constructively possessed the black messenger bag. See Deshazier, 877 N.E.2d at
208 (totality of circumstances supported conviction based on constructive
possession).
[17] Gregory’s alternate explanations regarding the factors of constructive
possession are invitations 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).
Further, this case was tried to the bench, and we presume the judge knows and
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 18A-CR-151 | October 18, 2018 Page 8 of 9
properly applies the relevant law to the facts of the case. Laughlin v. State, 101
N.E.3d 827, 830 (Ind. Ct. App. 2018).
Conclusion
[18] The State presented sufficient evidence to prove Gregory constructively
possessed the drugs and gun found in the black messenger bag. Accordingly,
we affirm his convictions.
[19] Affirmed.
Najam, J., and Bailey, J., concur.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 18A-CR-151 | October 18, 2018 Page 9 of 9