Angela Cash-Hilyard v. State of Indiana (mem. dec.)

MEMORANDUM DECISION May 19 2015, 10:05 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
Joel M. Schumm Gregory F. Zoeller
Indianapolis, Indiana Attorney General of Indiana
Karl M. Scharnberg
Deputy Attorney General
Indianapolis, Indiana
IN THE
COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA
Angela Cash-Hilyard, May 19, 2015
Appellant-Defendant, Court of Appeals Cause No.
49A02-1409-CR-621
v. Appeal from the Marion Superior
Court
Cause No. 49G05-1401-FC-2273
State of Indiana,
Appellee-Plaintiff. The Honorable Grant Hawkins,
Judge; The Honorable Christina
Klineman, Commissioner
Barnes, Judge.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 49A02-1409-CR-621 | May 19, 2015 Page 1 of 5
Case Summary
[1] Angela Cash-Hilyard appeals her conviction for Class C felony promoting
prostitution. We affirm.
Issue
[2] Cash-Hilyard raises one issue, which we restate as whether the evidence is
sufficient to sustain her conviction.
Facts
[3] On January 15, 2014, Detective Henry Castor with the Indianapolis
Metropolitan Police Department’s human trafficking and vice division arranged
a meeting based on an advertisement on the website Backpage.com. The
advertisement offered “Nude body massages” by “Lacy.” State’s Ex. 1.
Detective Castor called the telephone number and arranged a meeting at a hotel
on North Shadeland Avenue in Indianapolis. They negotiated a price of $100
for an hour-long massage plus $20 for the driver.
[4] Amanda Fritz and Cash-Hilyard arrived at Detective Castor’s hotel room, and
Cash-Hilyard looked around the hotel room for Fritz’s protection. Cash-
Hilyard left the room, and Detective Castor negotiated with Fritz to provide a
“hand job.” Tr. p. 40. Detective Castor then arrested Fritz. Another detective
detained Cash-Hilyard in the lobby of the hotel. Cash-Hilyard explained to the
officers that she had helped set up the appointment, helped facilitate the
transportation of Fritz to the hotel, and checked the hotel room for any threats
to Fritz’s safety. She claimed to receive $20 to drive Fritz and $20 to set up
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 49A02-1409-CR-621 | May 19, 2015 Page 2 of 5
each appointment. Cash-Hilyard told the officers that the man with her was
just the driver and he “didn’t have any knowledge of the activity that was going
on.” Id. at 21. She said that she thought Fritz was there “to dance and maybe
provide hand jobs.” Id. at 25. Cash-Hilyard said that “she knew what was
going on, she didn’t think that [Fritz] was having sex but she knew [Fritz] was
doing at least hand jobs.” Id. at 58. Cash-Hilyard was carrying three or four
cellphones, a dozen condoms, $427 in cash, and a list of appointments.
[5] The State charged Cash-Hilyard with Class C felony promoting prostitution.
After a bench trial, the trial court found her guilty as charged. Cash-Hilyard
now appeals.
Analysis
[6] Cash-Hilyard argues that the evidence is insufficient to sustain her conviction.
When reviewing the sufficiency of the evidence needed to support a criminal
conviction, we neither reweigh 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.” Id. We will affirm 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.
[7] At the time of Cash-Hilyard’s offense, Indiana Code Section 35-45-4-4(5)
provided that a person who “knowingly or intentionally conducts or directs
another person to a place for the purpose of prostitution . . . commits promoting
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 49A02-1409-CR-621 | May 19, 2015 Page 3 of 5
prostitution, a Class C felony.” She argues that the evidence is insufficient to
show that she transported Fritz with knowledge that the purpose of the meeting
was prostitution. She argues that Fritz made the arrangement for sexual
activity with Detective Castor after Cash-Hilyard had left the hotel room. The
State points out that Cash-Hilyard was found in possession of three or four
cellphones, a dozen condoms, $427 in cash, and a list of appointments, that she
admitted to police officers that Fritz was there for sexual activity, and that she
claimed the man with her did not know what was going on. Cash-Hilyard’s
argument is merely a request that we reweigh the evidence, which we cannot
do. Despite Cash-Hilyard’s argument to the contrary, we conclude that there is
sufficient evidence that she was aware Fritz was engaged in prostitution and
that she knowingly conducted or directed Fritz to a place for the purpose of
prostitution.1
Conclusion
[8] The evidence is sufficient to sustain Cash-Hilyard’s conviction for Class C
felony promoting prostitution. We affirm.
[9] Affirmed.
1
Cash-Hilyard argues that this case is similar to Hernandez v. State, 785 N.E.2d 294 (Ind. Ct. App. 2003),
trans. denied. There, a woman was convicted of two counts of promoting prostitution and one count of
corrupt business influence. We reversed based on certain evidence that was admitted at trial, and we held, in
part, that one of the promoting prostitution convictions was not subject to retrial because the alleged
prostitute did not ask for money and only said that the officer could “tip her if he liked it.” Hernandez, 785
N.E.2d at 297. There is no dispute here that Fritz engaged in prostitution, and we do not find Hernandez on
point.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 49A02-1409-CR-621 | May 19, 2015 Page 4 of 5
Riley, J., and Bailey, J., concur.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 49A02-1409-CR-621 | May 19, 2015 Page 5 of 5