Joseph D. Haskins, III v. State of Indiana (mem. dec.)

MEMORANDUM DECISION
Pursuant to Ind. Appellate Rule 65(D), this
Memorandum Decision shall not be regarded as Feb 10 2015, 10:23 am
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
Jack Quirk Gregory F. Zoeller
Public Defender Attorney General of Indiana
Muncie, Indiana
Kenneth E. Biggins
Deputy Attorney General
Indianapolis, Indiana
IN THE
COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA
Joseph D. Haskins, III, February 10, 2015
Appellant-Defendant, Court of Appeals Case No.
18A02-1408-CR-555
v. Appeal from the Delaware Circuit
Court
The Honorable Kimberly S.
State of Indiana, Dowling, Judge
Appellee-Plaintiff Case No. 18C02-1308-FB-13
Crone, Judge.
Case Summary
[1] Joseph D. Haskins, III, appeals his conviction for class C felony carrying a
handgun without a license, arguing that the evidence is insufficient to establish
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 18A02-1408-CR-555 | February 10, 2015 Page 1 of 6
that he had actual or constructive possession of the gun. Concluding that the
evidence is sufficient, we affirm.
Facts and Procedural History
[2] The evidence most favorable to the conviction shows that in July 2013, Muncie
Police Department Officer Amoreena Kesler reported to the Earthstone Terrace
apartments in the early morning hours to assist another officer in searching for
shoplifting suspects. Officer Kesler was in a police car and in uniform. While
Officer Kesler was speaking to the other officer, she saw two African-American
men drive into the complex on two mopeds. Knowing that the shoplifting
suspects had been seen on a moped, Officer Kesler drove after them but lost
sight of them.
[3] Officer Kesler parked her police car and began walking to the rear of the
apartment complex when “a black male, wearing a white t-shirt and brown
shorts came running … towards the front of the apartment.” Tr. at 48. Officer
Kesler was still next to her police car. The man, who was later identified as
Haskins, was running directly toward her. She ordered the man to stop and
announced that she was a police officer. The man looked at her, turned around,
and ran to the back of the apartment building. She ran after him yelling,
“[P]olice, stop running.” Id. at 49. She followed him behind the apartment
building, and she saw another black man running. She ordered him to stop, but
he did not. She saw Haskins and the other man run into a cornfield behind the
apartment building. Each ran into a separate area of the cornfield.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 18A02-1408-CR-555 | February 10, 2015 Page 2 of 6
[4] More police arrived. Eventually, Haskins exited the cornfield from the same
area that he had entered it. Several minutes later, the other man, later identified
as Tristin Twilley, also exited the cornfield where he had entered it.
[5] While Officer Kesler was behind the apartment building, she observed that the
apartments had patios. The police found two mopeds parked on the patio of
Haskins’s sister’s apartment. Their engines were warm, and they smelled like
gasoline. The keys to the blue moped were found in Twilley’s pocket. The
keys to the red moped were in the ignition, attached to an Ivy Tech lanyard.
Unlike Twilley, Haskins had previously attended Ivy Tech. Officer Kesler saw
a cellphone with a purple case in the red moped’s console and what she
believed to be the handle of a handgun wrapped in a red bandana extending out
of the console. Officer Kesler removed the object to determine if it was actually
a gun. When she confirmed that it was, she returned it to its original location.
She photographed the moped and the gun. Haskins informed the police that
the cellphone was his, but he said that he had lost it and that it was being
returned to him that night for a fee of twenty dollars. Haskins also told police
that he had played basketball with Twilley earlier that evening.
[6] The State charged Haskins with class C felony carrying a handgun without a
license and class D felony receiving stolen property. Following a bench trial,
the trial court found Haskins guilty of class C felony carrying a handgun
without a license and not guilty of the second charge. Haskins appeals.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 18A02-1408-CR-555 | February 10, 2015 Page 3 of 6
Discussion and Decision
[7] Haskins challenges the sufficiency of the evidence. In reviewing the sufficiency
of the evidence, we consider only the evidence and reasonable inferences arising
therefrom supporting the conviction without reweighing the evidence or judging
witness credibility. Henley v. State, 881 N.E.2d 639, 652 (Ind. 2008). “We will
affirm a conviction if 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. “Elements of offenses and identity may be established
entirely by circumstantial evidence and logical inferences drawn therefrom.”
Bustamante v. State, 557 N.E.2d 1313, 1317 (Ind. 1990).
[8] To convict Haskins of carrying a handgun without a license, the State had to
prove beyond a reasonable doubt that he carried a handgun in any vehicle or on
or about his body without being licensed and that he had been convicted of a
felony within the prior fifteen years. Appellant’s App. at 48-49; Ind. Code §§
35-47-2-1, -23. “To satisfy these elements, the State must prove the defendant
had either actual or constructive possession of the handgun.” Deshazier v. State,
877 N.E.2d 200, 204 (Ind. Ct. App. 2007), trans. denied (2008).
[9] Haskins contends that the evidence is insufficient to establish that he had actual
or constructive possession of the handgun.
To show actual possession, the State must show that the defendant had
direct physical control over the handgun. When proceeding on a
theory of constructive possession, the State must show that the
defendant had both the intent and capability to maintain dominion
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 18A02-1408-CR-555 | February 10, 2015 Page 4 of 6
and control over the handgun. Such a showing inherently involves
showing the defendant had knowledge of the handgun’s presence.
Id. at 205 (citations, quotation marks, and brackets omitted).
[10] Evidence of a defendant’s dominion and control over a firearm may include the
following: “(1) incriminating statements by the defendant; (2) attempted flight
or furtive gestures; (3) proximity of the firearm to the defendant; (4) location of
the firearm within the defendant’s plain view; and (5) the mingling of a firearm
with other items owned by the defendant.” Causey v. State, 808 N.E.2d 139, 143
(Ind. Ct. App. 2004). Haskins claims that the only evidence connecting him to
the mopeds was his cell phone and that the State offered no evidence that he
knew that the handgun was present. We disagree.
[11] Haskins admitted that he was with Twilley earlier in the evening. They were
both found hiding in the same cornfield. The mopeds were parked next to each
other on Haskins’s sister’s patio. The mopeds were still warm, indicating that
they had recently been ridden. Twilley had the key to the blue moped in his
pocket. The key to the red moped was attached to an Ivy Tech lanyard, and
Haskins had previously attended Ivy Tech. From this evidence and the
reasonable inferences arising therefrom, a reasonable factfinder could find
beyond a reasonable doubt that Haskins had just been driving the red moped.
As for whether Haskins knew that the handgun was present, it was in plain
view in the red moped’s console directly in front of the seat. Haskins’s
cellphone was next to it. Also, Haskins ran away from Officer Kesler when he
saw her. “Flight is also an ‘additional circumstance’ that will support an
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 18A02-1408-CR-555 | February 10, 2015 Page 5 of 6
inference of intent [to maintain dominion and control].” Lampkins v. State, 682
N.E.2d 1268, 1276 (Ind. 1997) (quoting Hutcherson v. State, 178 Ind. App. 8, 11-
12, 381 N.E.2d 877, 879 (1978)). All this evidence is sufficient to establish that
Haskins knew that the handgun was in the moped and that he had dominion
and control over it. Accordingly, we affirm his conviction.
[12] Affirmed.
Friedlander, J., and Kirsch, J., concur.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 18A02-1408-CR-555 | February 10, 2015 Page 6 of 6