Rodrick Osborn Sheron 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 2017, 6:46 am
court except for the purpose of establishing
the defense of res judicata, collateral CLERK
Indiana Supreme Court
estoppel, or the law of the case. Court of Appeals
and Tax Court
ATTORNEY FOR APPELLANT ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE
Evan K. Hammond Curtis T. Hill, Jr.
Marion, Indiana Attorney General of Indiana
Chandra K. Hein
Deputy Attorney General
Indianapolis, Indiana
IN THE
COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA
Rodrick Osborn Sheron, March 9, 2017
Appellant-Defendant, Court of Appeals Case No.
27A05-1606-CR-1244
v. Appeal from the Grant Superior
Court
State of Indiana, The Honorable Dana J.
Appellee-Plaintiff Kenworthy, Judge
Trial Court Cause No.
27D02-1506-F1-3
Altice, Judge.
Case Summary
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 27A05-1606-CR-1244 | March 9, 2017 Page 1 of 6
[1] Rodrick Osborn Sheron challenges the sufficiency of the evidence in support of
his conviction for robbery resulting in serious bodily injury, a Level 2 felony.
[2] We affirm.
Facts & Procedural History
[3] Sheron and Megan Poling began dating in late 2014. In March 2015, Megan
received a tax refund. Megan used some of the money to make purchases,
deposited some of the money into her bank account, and retained some cash in
her wallet. At some point thereafter, she noticed that money was missing from
her wallet. Because Sheron had been acting strangely, Megan suspected that he
might have taken it. She checked Sheron’s wallet and found the money that
had been taken from her wallet. An altercation between Sheron and Megan
ensued, police were called, and the money was confiscated as part of the
investigation of the incident.
[4] On the night of May 28, 2015, Gordon Jenkins gave Megan a ride home from
work. Jenkins did not want to drive all the way home, so he stayed the night at
Megan’s. They were asleep in the same bed when both were awakened by
Sheron hitting Megan in the face. Megan was screaming and yelling for help,
but Sheron continued with the attack, repeatedly punching her in the face and
head while yelling “where’s my money, you owe me money and you’re going
to get my money today.” Transcript at 37. He also threatened to kill Megan if
she did not cooperate. Jenkins could not summon help for Megan because
Sheron took both of their phones.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 27A05-1606-CR-1244 | March 9, 2017 Page 2 of 6
[5] Sheron then picked Megan up and threw her across the room into her dresser
and her nose started bleeding. The attack continued as Sheron pulled Megan
out into the hallway and smashed her into a wall causing a hole in the drywall.
Eventually, Sheron chased Megan into the bathroom and continued to hit her.
He then told her that she needed to have sex with an unidentified individual in
order to get him the money he claimed she owed him.
[6] Sheron left Megan in the bathroom and went to her room to gather some
clothes. While Sheron was in her room, Megan ran from the house and across
the street to a neighbor’s house. Sheron chased after her. As Sheron ran out of
the house, he dropped Jenkins’s cell phone on the ground. Jenkins used his
phone to call the police. When police arrived at the neighbor’s house, they
encountered Megan when she opened the front door. Sheron fled out a back
door. Thereafter Megan was taken to the hospital. As a result of the beating,
Megan suffered a broken nose and fractures to her cheek bones. Her face was
red and swollen and she received sixteen stitches on her nose. The treating
physician described her injuries as “fairly severe” and Megan testified that she
was in a lot of pain. Id. at 246.
[7] Megan’s father returned to her home to gather her things, at which time it was
discovered that money Megan kept in a pouch in her bedroom, her keys, and
her cell phone were missing. The pouch that had contained the money had
been moved from Megan’s bedroom and was found near the front door. The
money, the keys, and Megan’s phone were never recovered. Sheron was
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 27A05-1606-CR-1244 | March 9, 2017 Page 3 of 6
eventually arrested. Despite a no-contact order, Sheron called Megan
numerous times from jail to tell her he loved her.
[8] On May 28, 2015, the State charged Sheron with Count I, burglary, as a Level 1
felony; Count II, robbery resulting in serious bodily injury, a Level 2 felony;
Count III, battery resulting in serious bodily injury, a Level 5 felony; and
Counts IV through IX, invasion of privacy, each a Level 6 felony. A jury trial
commenced on April 12, 2016. The jury found Sheron guilty of the lesser-
included offense of residential entry, a Level 6 felony, for Count I, and guilty as
charged for Counts II through IX. On May 9, 2016, the trial court sentenced
Sheron to 2.5 years on Count I; 30 years on Count II; 6 years on Count III; and
2.5 years on each of Counts IV through IX. The trial court ordered Counts I
through III be served concurrent with each other and Counts IV through IX be
served concurrent with each other. The trial court ordered that Counts I
through III be served consecutive to Counts IV through IX, for a total aggregate
sentence of 32.5 years executed. On appeal, Sheron challenges only his
conviction on Count II. Additional facts will be provided as necessary.
Discussion & Decision
[9] In reviewing a challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence, we neither reweigh
the evidence nor judge the credibility of witnesses. Atteberry v. State, 911 N.E.2d
601, 609 (Ind. Ct. App. 2009). Instead, we consider only the evidence
supporting the conviction and the reasonable inferences flowing therefrom. Id.
If there is substantial evidence of probative value from which a reasonable trier
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 27A05-1606-CR-1244 | March 9, 2017 Page 4 of 6
of fact could have drawn the conclusion that the defendant was guilty of the
crime charged beyond a reasonable doubt, the judgment will not be disturbed.
Baumgartner v. State, 891 N.E.2d 1131, 1137 (Ind. Ct. App. 2008).
[10] To sustain Sheron’s conviction for robbery resulting in serious bodily injury, the
State was required to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that on or about May
28, 2015, (1) Sheron (2) knowingly (3) took property (“to wit: cash, a mobile
telephone and/or keys”) (4) from Megan (5) by using or threatening the use of
force, (6) resulting in serious bodily injury to Megan. Appellant’s Appendix at 25;
see also Ind. Code § 35-42-5-1(1). Our Supreme Court has reasoned that
“[w]ithout the taking of property, and no evidence from which to draw an
inference that property was taken, there can be no conviction for robbery.”
Grace v. State, 731 N.E.2d 442, 445 (Ind. 2000).
[11] On appeal, Sheron challenges only whether the evidence is sufficient to
establish that he took property from Megan.1 Specifically, Sheron argues that
there is no evidence that he took or was ever in possession of the money from
the pouch Megan kept in her room, her keys, or her phone. We disagree.
[12] Megan testified that Sheron took her phone. This was sufficient standing alone
to establish a taking of property. As to the money and truck keys, the jury
could have inferred that when Sheron was alone in Megan’s bedroom, he took
the pouch containing the money and Megan’s truck keys as these items were on
1
Sheron does not dispute the evidence regarding the physical altercation or Megan’s injuries.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 27A05-1606-CR-1244 | March 9, 2017 Page 5 of 6
or near the bed in plain view in Megan’s room. Megan testified that the money
was in the pouch, in her room when she went to bed and that following the
attack, the money was missing. The pouch that had contained the money had
been moved from Megan’s bedroom and was found near the front door. In
sum, there was direct evidence that Sheron took Megan’s phone. There was
also evidence from which a reasonable inference could be drawn that Sheron
took Megan’s keys and/or money from her home. Sheron’s arguments to the
contrary are simply requests that we reweigh the evidence or judge the
credibility of witnesses, which we will not oblige.
[13] Judgment affirmed.
[14] Riley, J. and Crone, J., concur.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 27A05-1606-CR-1244 | March 9, 2017 Page 6 of 6