Derrick Anthony Duncan v. State of Indiana (mem. dec.)

MEMORANDUM DECISION
Pursuant to Ind. Appellate Rule 65(D),
this Memorandum Decision shall not be Dec 21 2015, 7:01 am
regarded as precedent or cited before any
court except for the purpose of establishing
the defense of res judicata, collateral
estoppel, or the law of the case.
ATTORNEY FOR APPELLANT ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE
Jeffrey D. Stonebraker Gregory F. Zoeller
Clark County Chief Public Defender Attorney General of Indiana
Jeffersonville, Indiana
Paula J. Beller
Deputy Attorney General
Indianapolis, Indiana
IN THE
COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA
Derrick Anthony Duncan, December 21, 2015
Appellant-Defendant, Court of Appeals Case No.
10A04-1505-CR-509
v. Appeal from the Clark Circuit
Court
State of Indiana, The Honorable Glenn Hancock,
Appellee-Plaintiff. Senior Judge
Trial Court Cause No.
10C03-1203-FD-422
Bradford, Judge.
Case Summary
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 10A04-1505-CR-509 | December 21, 2015 Page 1 of 8
[1] In June of 2005, Appellant-Defendant Derrick Anthony Duncan was convicted
of Class B felony child molesting. As a result of his conviction, Duncan was
classified as a sexual violent predator and was given a lifetime registration
requirement with the Sex and Violent Offender Registry. In March of 2012,
Duncan briefly obtained employment at two restaurants in Clark County.
Duncan failed to comply with the registration requirements for employment in
Clark County during these brief periods of employment. As a result of his
failure to comply with the registration requirements, he was subsequently
convicted of Class D felony failure to register.
[2] On appeal, Duncan contends that the evidence is insufficient to sustain his
conviction for Class D felony failure to register. Concluding otherwise, we
affirm.
Facts and Procedural History
[3] In June of 2005, Duncan was convicted of Class B felony child molesting. As a
result of this conviction, Duncan was classified as a sexual violent predator with
a lifetime registration requirement. Upon his release from the Department of
Correction (“DOC”), Duncan acknowledged that he read or had read to him
information setting forth his registration duties and that he had received a
written copy of this information. Duncan also acknowledged that he
understood his statutory registration duties.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 10A04-1505-CR-509 | December 21, 2015 Page 2 of 8
[4] In March of 2012, Duncan resided in Scott County. On March 9, 2012, he
obtained employment at a Kentucky Fried Chicken (“KFC”) restaurant located
in Clark County. On March 13, 2012, Duncan obtained additional
employment at an International House of Pancakes (“IHOP”) restaurant. The
IHOP restaurant was also located in Clark County. Duncan failed to register
with the Clark County Sheriff’s Department Registry Division (“Clark County
Sheriff’s Registry Division”), the entity responsible for sex offender registration
in Clark County, within seventy-two hours of obtaining either source of
employment.
[5] At some point, Duncan scheduled an appointment with the Clark County
Sheriff’s Registry Division for March 20, 2012. Duncan failed to appear for this
meeting. Duncan subsequently informed representatives of the Clark County
Sheriff’s Registry Division that he had failed to appear because his employment
at both the KFC and the IHOP restaurants ended on March 19, 2012.
[6] On March 20, 2012, Appellee-Plaintiff the State of Indiana (the “State”)
charged Duncan with Class D felony failure to register. The State also alleged
that Duncan was a habitual offender. Following a two-day jury trial, Duncan
was convicted of Class D felony failure to register. He was also found to be a
habitual offender. This appeal follows.
Discussion and Decision
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 10A04-1505-CR-509 | December 21, 2015 Page 3 of 8
[7] Duncan contends that the evidence is insufficient to sustain his conviction for
failure to register.
When reviewing the sufficiency of the evidence to support a
conviction, appellate courts must consider only the probative
evidence and reasonable inferences supporting the verdict. It is
the fact-finder’s role, not that of appellate courts, to assess
witness credibility and weigh the evidence to determine whether
it is sufficient to support a conviction. To preserve this structure,
when appellate courts are confronted with conflicting evidence,
they must consider it most favorably to the trial court’s ruling.
Appellate courts affirm the conviction unless no reasonable fact-
finder could find the elements of the crime proven beyond a
reasonable doubt. It is therefore not necessary that the evidence
overcome every reasonable hypothesis of innocence. The
evidence is sufficient if an inference may reasonably be drawn
from it to support the verdict.
Drane v. State, 867 N.E.2d 144, 146-47 (Ind. 2007) (citations, emphasis, and
quotations omitted). “In essence, we assess only whether the verdict could be
reached based on reasonable inferences that may be drawn from the evidence
presented.” Baker v. State, 968 N.E.2d 227, 229 (Ind. 2012) (emphasis in
original). Upon review, appellate courts do not reweigh the evidence or assess
the credibility of the witnesses, Stewart v. State, 768 N.E.2d 433, 435 (Ind. 2002),
as the jury, acting as the trier-of-fact, is “‘free to believe whomever they wish.’”
Klaff v. State, 884 N.E.2d 272, 274 (Ind. Ct. App. 2008) (quoting McClendon v.
State, 671 N.E.2d 486, 488 (Ind. Ct. App. 1996)).
[8] “[A] conviction may be based purely on circumstantial evidence.” Hayes v.
State, 876 N.E.2d 373, 375 (Ind. Ct. App. 2007) (citing Moore v. State, 652
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 10A04-1505-CR-509 | December 21, 2015 Page 4 of 8
N.E.2d 53, 55 (Ind. 1995)), trans. denied. “‘On appeal, the circumstantial
evidence need not overcome every reasonable hypothesis of innocence.’” Id.(quoting Moore, 652 N.E.2d at 55). “It is enough if an inference reasonably
tending to support the conviction can be drawn from the circumstantial
evidence.” Id. (citing Moore, 652 N.E.2d at 55). Thus, where circumstantial
evidence is used to establish guilt, “‘the question for the reviewing court is
whether reasonable minds could reach the inferences drawn by the jury; if so,
there is sufficient evidence.’” Klaff, 884 N.E.2d at 274-75 (quoting Maxwell v.
State, 731 N.E.2d 459, 462 (Ind. Ct. App. 2000)).
[9] In March of 2012, Indiana Code section 11-8-8-11(c) provided that if a sex or
violent offender who is required to register changes his or her principal place of
employment to a county other than the county in which the offender resides,
“the sex or violent offender shall report in person: … to the local law
enforcement authority having jurisdiction over the sex or violent offender’s new
principal place of employment … not more than seventy-two (72) hours after the
change.” (Emphases added). On March 30, 2012, the State filed a charging
information alleging that Duncan had failed to satisfy the above-quoted
registration requirement in violation of Indiana Code section 11-8-8-17. The
version of Indiana Code section 11-8-8-17 in effect at the time provided that
“[a] sex or violent offender who knowingly or intentionally: (1) fails to register
when required to register under this chapter; (2) fails to register in every
location where the sex or violent offender is required to register under this
chapter; … [or] (4) fails to register in person as required under this chapter …
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 10A04-1505-CR-509 | December 21, 2015 Page 5 of 8
commits a Class D felony.” Thus, in order to prove that Duncan committed
the alleged Class D felony, the State was required to prove that Duncan
knowingly or intentionally failed to register, in person, with a required entity
within the statutorily imposed seventy-two-hour time frame.
[10] Initially, we note that Duncan does not dispute that he was required to register
in Clark County. Duncan merely argues that the State failed to prove beyond a
reasonable doubt that he knowingly or intentionally failed to comply with the
registration requirements within the statutorily imposed seventy-two-hour time
frame. We disagree.
[11] With respect to the mens rea requirement, i.e., whether Duncan acted knowingly
or intentionally, the State introduced evidence indicating that Duncan
acknowledged, in writing, that he understood his registration duties.
Specifically, Duncan signed a statement which provided as follows:
I read or have had read to me the information contained in “Sex
and Violent Offender Registration Responsibilities and Other
Duties.” By my signature, I acknowledge that I have received a
copy of this information and that I understand my registration
duties and obligations under IC 11-8-8[,] IC 35-42-4[,] and other
corresponding Indiana Statutes.
State’s Ex. 3. Angie Huggins, a re-entry specialist with the DOC, also signed a
statement which provided as follows: “I hereby certify that [Duncan] was orally
informed and provided a copy of the information contained in ‘Sex and Violent
Offender Registration Responsibilities and Other Duties.’” State’s Ex. 3. In
addition, the State presented evidence indicating that when an offender is
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 10A04-1505-CR-509 | December 21, 2015 Page 6 of 8
released from the DOC, the offender must attend and complete an exit class,
during which the registration process and requirements is explained. Duncan’s
acknowledgement that he understood the applicable registration requirements
supports the reasonable inference that a failure to comply with said
requirements would be done knowingly or intentionally.
[12] The record also contains evidence sufficient to sustain the jury’s determination
that Duncan failed to register, in person, with the Clark County Sheriff’s
Registry Division within the statutorily allotted seventy-two-hour time frame.
The State presented evidence that Duncan’s employment at the KFC began on
March 9, 2012. Thus, with respect to his employment at KFC, the deadline for
Duncan to register with the Clark County Sheriff’s Registry Division was no
later than March 12, 2012. Likewise, the State presented evidence that
Duncan’s employment at the IHOP began on March 13, 2012. Thus, with
respect to his employment at IHOP, the deadline for Duncan to register with
the Clark County Sheriff’s Registry Division was no later than March 16, 2012.
Clark County Sheriff’s Detective Captain Tim Franklin, who was tasked with
investigating potential violations of the statutorily proscribed registration
requirements in Clark County, testified that he never received any type of
notification or information indicating that Duncan contacted the Clark County
Sheriff’s Registry Division within the statutorily imposed seventy-two-hour time
frame.
[13] In sum, we conclude that the evidence is sufficient to sustain Duncan’s
conviction for Class D felony failure to register. Duncan’s claim to the contrary
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 10A04-1505-CR-509 | December 21, 2015 Page 7 of 8
effectively amounts to an invitation to reweigh the evidence, which we will not
do. See Stewart, 768 N.E.2d at 375.
[14] The judgment of the trial court is affirmed.
Baker, J., and Pyle, J., concur.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 10A04-1505-CR-509 | December 21, 2015 Page 8 of 8