Devon Delshaun Dokes 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 21 2017, 8:38 am
court except for the purpose of establishing
CLERK
the defense of res judicata, collateral Indiana Supreme Court
Court of Appeals
estoppel, or the law of the case. and Tax Court
ATTORNEY FOR APPELLANT ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE
Sean P. Hilgendorf Curtis T. Hill, Jr.
South Bend, Indiana Attorney General of Indiana
Michael Gene Worden
Deputy Attorney General
Indianapolis, Indiana
IN THE
COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA
Devon Delshaun Dokes, March 21, 2017
Appellant-Defendant, Court of Appeals Case No.
71A03-1605-CR-1190
v. Appeal from the St. Joseph
Superior Court
State of Indiana, The Honorable John M.
Appellee-Plaintiff. Marnocha, Judge
Trial Court Cause No.
71D02-1512-F3-65
Bailey, Judge.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 71A03-1605-CR-1190 | March 21, 2017 Page 1 of 5
Case Summary
[1] Devon Delshaun Dokes (“Dokes”) appeals his conviction of Robbery, as a
Level 5 felony.1 He presents the sole issue of whether there is sufficient
evidence to support his conviction. We affirm.
Facts and Procedural History
[2] On September 20, 2015, Renee Bond (“Bond”) went to the South Bend
residence of Terrica McMorris (“McMorris”) to conduct a direct sales home
party. She was accompanied by her friend Yvonne Kaczmark (“Kaczmark”).
[3] Although the sales presentation was directed toward women, six men were
present at the residence, serving drinks and going back and forth to the back
yard. One of those was Dokes, who came to the McMorris residence as a guest
of McMorris’s cousin. After the sales presentation, Dokes came into the house
and sat at the dining room table where Bonds was tallying her sales. The party
proceeds were $530, consisting of one check, one credit card transaction, and
approximately $400 in cash. Dokes interacted with Bonds for about forty-five
minutes, asking questions about the products and joking.
[4] As Bond was completing paperwork, Kaczmark began to remove the product
totes from the residence and Dokes offered to help. He lifted one of the totes
1
Ind. Code § 35-42-5-1.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 71A03-1605-CR-1190 | March 21, 2017 Page 2 of 5
but soon dropped it on the floor and began to retrieve items. It appeared to
Kaczmark that Dokes was “rummaging around” in the dropped box. (Tr. at
39.) Kaczmark and Dokes placed the totes in Bond’s vehicle and Dokes left.
Kaczmark returned to the residence to eat.
[5] Approximately one-half hour later, McMorris walked Bond and Kaczmark to
the door and said goodnight. Kaczmark opened the passenger door of Bond’s
vehicle, illuminating the interior. As Bond approached the driver’s side door,
she felt a gun “pressed fairly hard” to her left temple. (Tr. at 67.) A voice that
she recognized as Dokes’s voice demanded “give me that purse.” (Tr. at 66.)
Bond dropped her purse, drink, and a tote bag. She then turned to see a man
with dreadlocks, dressed in a black hoodie and dark jeans, running away. The
hairstyle and clothing was consistent with Dokes’s appearance at the party.
[6] Bond – by that time shaking, crying, and hysterical – exclaimed to Kaczmark
that she had been robbed and then ran to McMorris’s house. Bond pounded on
the door and, when McMorris answered, Bonds cried out that she had “just got
robbed” by “the guy at the party.” (Tr. at 116.)
[7] McMorris summoned police and Bond identified Dokes from a photographic
array. A neighbor found Bond’s purse a few blocks away, but it had been
emptied of the cash and checks.
[8] Dokes was arrested and, on April 18, 2016, he was tried in a bench trial upon a
charge of Robbery, as a Level 3 felony. After the presentation of evidence, he
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 71A03-1605-CR-1190 | March 21, 2017 Page 3 of 5
was convicted of the lesser-included offense of Robbery, as a Level 5 felony.
He was sentenced to six years imprisonment. Dokes now appeals.
Discussion and Decision
[9] To convict Dokes of Robbery, as a Level 5 felony, the State was required to
establish beyond a reasonable doubt that Dokes knowingly or intentionally took
property from Bond by using or threatening the use of force or by placing Bonds
in fear. I.C. § 35-42-5-1. Dokes contends that there is insufficient evidence to
identify him as the person who robbed Bond. He also claims that there is a lack
of evidence as to the element of force or placing the victim in fear.
[10] When reviewing the sufficiency of the evidence to support a criminal
conviction, this Court will neither reweigh the evidence nor judge witness
credibility. Bailey v. State, 907 N.E.2d 1003, 1005 (Ind. 2009). “We consider
only the evidence supporting the judgment and any reasonable inferences that
can be drawn from such evidence.” Henley v. State, 881 N.E.2d 639, 652 (Ind.
2008). We will affirm when there is substantial evidence of probative value
such that a reasonable trier of fact could have concluded the defendant was
guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. Id.
[11] Bond testified that she recognized her robber by his voice. Also, she had
recognized that the robber’s hairstyle and clothing were consistent with Dokes’s
appearance at the party. Dokes asks that we discard this testimony, suggesting
that a voice recognition provides inadequate identification testimony. He is
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 71A03-1605-CR-1190 | March 21, 2017 Page 4 of 5
incorrect. In Easley v. State, 427 N.E.2d 435, 436 (Ind. 1981), the Court stated
“[i]n court identifications on the basis of voice alone have been held sufficient
to sustain a conviction.” See also Jackson v. State, 758 N.E.2d 1030, 1036 (Ind.
Ct. App. 2001) (holding that “voice identification evidence that places the
defendant at the crime scene at the precise time and place of the crime’s
commission is direct evidence.”)
[12] As for the element of force or placing the victim in fear, Dokes observes that
Bond did not specifically testify that she was fearful. However, Bond testified
that she felt a gun pressed to her temple and the force was sufficient to leave an
imprint. She also testified that she began crying and shaking and dropped her
property. Kaczmark described Bond as “frantic and hysterical” and testified
that Bond ran toward the house screaming. (Tr. at 28.) McMorris also
described Bond as being “hysterical.” (Tr. at 115.) This provides sufficient
evidence from which the fact-finder could conclude that Dokes used or
threatened force or placed Bond in fear.
Conclusion
[13] The State presented sufficient evidence to support Dokes’s conviction of
Robbery, as a Level 5 felony.
[14] Affirmed.
Najam, J., and May, J., concur.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 71A03-1605-CR-1190 | March 21, 2017 Page 5 of 5