Valene Miller v. State of Indiana (mem. dec.)

MEMORANDUM DECISION
May 13 2015, 10:35 am
Pursuant to Ind. Appellate Rule 65(D), this
Memorandum Decision shall not be 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
Timothy J. Burns Gregory F. Zoeller
Indianapolis, IN Attorney General of Indiana
Katherine Modesitt Cooper
Deputy Attorney General
Indianapolis, Indiana
IN THE
COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA
Valene Miller, May 13, 2015
Appellant-Defendant, Court of Appeals Case No.
49A04-1410-CR-479
v. Appeal from the Marion Superior
Court
State of Indiana,
The Honorable David E. Cook,
Appellee-Plaintiff. Judge
Cause No. 49F07-1404-CM-20367
Najam, Judge.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 49A04-1410-CR-479 | May 13, 2015 Page 1 of 6
Statement of the Case
[1] Valene Miller appeals her conviction for possession of marijuana, as a Class A
misdemeanor. Miller presents one issue for our review, namely, whether the
State presented sufficient evidence to support her conviction. We affirm.
Facts and Procedural History
[2] On April 19, 2014, the Indianapolis Metropolitan Police Department (“IMPD”)
dispatched officers to a residence in Indianapolis (“the home”), which Miller
shared with her boyfriend, Darnell White, regarding a domestic disturbance
between Miller and White. Miller and White both had signed the lease for the
home, and four other individuals lived with them but were not present when
officers arrived. Initially, Miller agreed to leave the home, which the officers
believed resolved the disturbance, and the officers left. Within minutes,
however, IMPD received a dispatch to the home, again regarding a domestic
disturbance between Miller and White.
[3] The same officers responded to the home the second time, and, when they did,
they found White sitting outside. White reported that Miller had destroyed
several items of property after the officers left the first time. He stated that
Miller was inside the home, and he gave the officers consent to enter. When
the officers did so, Officer David Miedema saw a small bag of marijuana
located on the floor of the home, just inside the front door. Officer Miedema
then proceeded through the home with another officer and found Miller at the
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 49A04-1410-CR-479 | May 13, 2015 Page 2 of 6
home’s rear. Miller was agitated, so the officers handcuffed her for officer
safety and removed her from the home to speak with her.
[4] While speaking with Miller, the officers suggested to her that she be taken to the
hospital, but Miller refused. Instead, Miller stated that she would rather go to
jail and, at the same time, identified the bag of marijuana as belonging to her.
Thus, Officer Miedema placed Miller under arrest, and, on April 20, the State
charged Miller with possession of marijuana, as a Class A misdemeanor.
[5] The trial court held Miller’s bench trial on September 23, 2014, at which White
testified on Miller’s behalf that the marijuana actually belonged to another of
the home’s residents, who had dropped the bag and fled when the police
arrived. However, at the conclusion of the trial, the court convicted Miller as
charged. The court then sentenced Miller to 365 days in the Marion County
Jail, which it suspended. The court also ordered Miller to report to probation
for 180 days; to complete thirty hours of community service and twelve
substance-abuse classes; and to pay a $100 fine and court costs. This appeal
ensued.
Discussion and Decision
[6] Miller contends that the State failed to present sufficient evidence to support her
conviction. Our standard of review for sufficiency of the evidence claims is
well-settled. Tobar v. State, 740 N.E.2d 109, 111 (Ind. 2000).
In reviewing the sufficiency of the evidence, we examine only the
probative evidence and reasonable inferences that support the
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 49A04-1410-CR-479 | May 13, 2015 Page 3 of 6
verdict. We do not assess witness credibility, nor do we reweigh
the evidence to determine if it was sufficient to support a
conviction. Under our appellate system, those roles are reserved
for the finder of fact. Instead, we consider only the evidence
most favorable to the trial court ruling and affirm the conviction
unless no reasonable fact-finder could find the elements of the
crime proven beyond a reasonable doubt.
Pillow v. State, 986 N.E.2d 343, 344 (Ind. Ct. App. 2013) (citations and
quotation marks omitted).
[7] To convict Miller of possession of marijuana, as a Class A misdemeanor, the
State was required to prove that Miller knowingly or intentionally possessed
marijuana. Ind. Code. § 35-48-4-11(1). To prove the possession element, the
State can show either: (1) that a defendant actually possessed contraband; or
(2) that a defendant constructively possessed contraband. See Gray v. State, 957
N.E.2d 171, 174 (Ind. 2011).
[8] Here, the State sought to prove that Miller constructively possessed marijuana,
which Miller asserts that the State failed to do. A person constructively
possesses contraband when the person has both the intent and capability to
maintain dominion and control over the item. Id. Where the person charged
has an exclusive possessory interest in the property where the contraband was
found, “a trier of fact may infer that a defendant had the capability to maintain
dominion and control over the contraband from the simple fact” of the
defendant’s exclusive possessory interest in the premises. Id. However, more is
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 49A04-1410-CR-479 | May 13, 2015 Page 4 of 6
required where a defendant’s possessory interest in the premises is not
exclusive. See id. As our supreme court stated in Gray:
A trier of fact may likewise infer that a defendant had the intent
to maintain dominion and control over contraband from the
defendant’s possessory interest in the premises, even when that
possessory interest is not exclusive. When that possessory
interest is not exclusive, however, the State must support this
second inference with additional circumstances pointing to the
defendant’s knowledge of the presence and the nature of the
item. We have previously identified some possible examples,
including (1) a defendant’s incriminating statements; (2) a
defendant’s attempting to leave or making furtive gestures; (3) the
location of contraband like drugs in settings suggesting
manufacturing; (4) the item’s proximity to the defendant; (5) the
location of contraband within the defendant’s plain view; and (6)
the mingling of contraband with other items the defendant owns.
957 N.E.2d at 174-75 (internal citations omitted).
[9] Miller does not dispute that she had a nonexclusive possessory interest in the
home but contends that the State failed to support “this second inference with
additional circumstances.” Id. We disagree. The evidence demonstrates that
Miller made the incriminating statement that the marijuana belonged to her.
Further, Officer Miedema found the marijuana on the floor of the home, which
Miller had leased, in plain view of anyone inside. Officers also located Miller
inside of the home, while White was outside and while no one else was present
at the home. These facts support the inference that Miller had constructive
possession of the marijuana.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 49A04-1410-CR-479 | May 13, 2015 Page 5 of 6
[10] Despite this evidence, Miller asserts that “[h]er blurted[-]out statement does not
amount to an incriminating statement [in] view [of] the totality of the[]
circumstances” and that the State failed to prove any other circumstances.
Appellant’s Br. at 5. Instead, in essence, Miller requests that we credit her
defense that the marijuana belonged to another resident of the home. However,
both of these arguments amount to requests for us to reweigh the evidence,
which we will not do. Therefore, we hold that the evidence is sufficient to
support Miller’s conviction, and we affirm the trial court.
[11] Affirmed.
Baker, J., and Friedlander, J., concur.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 49A04-1410-CR-479 | May 13, 2015 Page 6 of 6