Lucretia Mae Joyce v. State of Indiana (mem. dec.)

MEMORANDUM DECISION
Pursuant to Ind. Appellate Rule 65(D),
this Memorandum Decision shall not be
FILED
regarded as precedent or cited before any Mar 09 2018, 9:09 am
court except for the purpose of establishing CLERK
Indiana Supreme Court
the defense of res judicata, collateral Court of Appeals
and Tax Court
estoppel, or the law of the case.
ATTORNEY FOR APPELLANT ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE
Yvette M. LaPlante Curtis T. Hill, Jr.
Keating & LaPlante, LLP Attorney General of Indiana
Evansville, Indiana
Katherine Cooper
Deputy Attorney General
Indianapolis, Indiana
IN THE
COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA
Lucretia Mae Joyce, March 9, 2018
Appellant-Defendant, Court of Appeals Case No.
82A01-1710-CR-2292
v. Appeal from the Vanderburgh
Superior Court
State of Indiana, The Honorable Keith A. Meier,
Appellee-Plaintiff. Special Judge
Trial Court Cause No.
82D02-1605-CM-3117
Najam, Judge.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 82A01-1710-CR-2292 | March 9, 2018 Page 1 of 4
Statement of the Case
[1] Lucretia Joyce appeals her conviction for criminal trespass, as a Class A
misdemeanor, following a bench trial. Joyce presents a single issue for our
review, namely, whether the State presented sufficient evidence to support her
conviction. We affirm.
Facts and Procedural History
[2] On May 26, 2016, Joyce’s son was being tried in Judge Pigman’s courtroom at
the Vanderburgh County Courthouse. Joyce arrived in the courtroom “in a
loud manner” and the judge admonished her to be quiet. Tr. at 7. Joyce left
the courtroom, but soon reentered, again making noise. At that point, John
Helfrich, a Deputy Sheriff for Vanderburgh County who was providing
courtroom security, attempted to get Joyce to leave the courtroom with him,
but she did not want to leave and was being loud and disruptive. Deputy
Helfrich “coax[ed]” her through the doorway by placing his hand on the small
of her back. Id. at 8. Once in the hallway, Joyce “had a fit.” Id. Deputy
Helfrich told Joyce that she had to leave the building, but she refused to leave.
Deputy Helfrich was eventually able to get Joyce to move outside of the
courthouse building, and he told her that “she had to leave the property.” Id. at
32. Again, Joyce refused. Once outside, rather than leaving the property,
Joyce stopped just outside the door to the courthouse and put her purse down
on a stone wall abutting a stairway. Deputy Helfrich arrested Joyce.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 82A01-1710-CR-2292 | March 9, 2018 Page 2 of 4
[3] The State charged Joyce with criminal trespass, resisting law enforcement, and
disorderly conduct, each as Class A misdemeanors. Following a bench trial,
the trial court found Joyce guilty of criminal trespass, as a Class A
misdemeanor,1 and sentenced her to one year with sixty days executed and the
balance suspended to probation. This appeal ensued.
Discussion and Decision
[4] Joyce contends that the State presented insufficient evidence to support her
conviction. In reviewing the sufficiency of the evidence, we consider only the
evidence and reasonable inferences most favorable to the conviction, neither
reweighing the evidence nor reassessing witness credibility. Griffith v. State, 59
N.E.3d 947, 958 (Ind. 2016). We will affirm the judgment unless no reasonable
fact-finder could find the defendant guilty. Id.[5] To prove criminal trespass, as a Class A misdemeanor, the State was required
to show that Joyce, not having a contractual interest in the property, knowingly
or intentionally refused to leave the courthouse after having been asked to leave
by Deputy Helfrich. Ind. Code § 35-43-2-2 (2015). On appeal, Joyce contends
that the State did not present evidence that she was on courthouse property
when Deputy Helfrich asked her to leave. Joyce also contends that the State
did not prove that she was given a “clear directive” that she had to leave the
1
The trial court found Joyce not guilty of resisting law enforcement, and the court “set aside” the judgment
on the disorderly conduct charge. Appellant’s App. Vol. II at 37.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 82A01-1710-CR-2292 | March 9, 2018 Page 3 of 4
courthouse grounds. Appellant’s Br. at 12. We address each contention in
turn.
[6] Joyce first states that she “was moved to an outdoor area” of the courthouse
when she was asked to leave the courthouse. Id. at 11. And she asserts that
“[n]o evidence was presented to show who owned that outdoor area” and,
therefore, that the State “failed to prove a material element of the crime—that it
was the landowner or his agent that made the request to leave.” Id. But the
surveillance video shows that, rather than leaving the courthouse premises,
Joyce stopped near the top of the courthouse steps immediately outside the
door to the courthouse. That area of the courthouse was within the curtilage of
the building. We reject Joyce’s contention on this issue.
[7] Joyce also states that “there is no evidence that the Deputy told Joyce to leave
the grounds specifically.” Appellant’s Br. at 11. But Deputy Helfrich testified
that, once Joyce stopped outside on the courthouse steps, he told her that she
had to “leave the property.” Tr. at 32. Again, Joyce was on the curtilage at
that point, which was clearly still courthouse property. Joyce’s contentions on
appeal amount to a request that we reweigh the evidence, which we cannot do.
The State presented sufficient evidence to support her conviction for criminal
trespass.
[8] Affirmed.
Mathias, J. and Barnes, J., concur.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 82A01-1710-CR-2292 | March 9, 2018 Page 4 of 4