Joshua K. Wasson 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 May 11 2017, 8:06 am
court except for the purpose of establishing CLERK
Indiana Supreme Court
the defense of res judicata, collateral Court of Appeals
and Tax Court
estoppel, or the law of the case.
ATTORNEY FOR APPELLANT ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE
Derick W. Steele Curtis T. Hill, Jr.
Deputy Public Defender Attorney General of Indiana
Kokomo, Indiana
Michael Gene Worden
Deputy Attorney General
Indianapolis, Indiana
IN THE
COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA
Joshua K. Wasson, May 11, 2017
Appellant-Defendant, Court of Appeals Case No.
34A02-1701-CR-79
v. Appeal from the Howard Superior
Court
State of Indiana, The Honorable William C.
Appellee-Plaintiff. Menges, Jr., Judge
Trial Court Cause No.
34D01-1607-F6-656
Bradford, Judge.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 34A02-1701-CR-79 | May 11, 2017 Page 1 of 5
Case Summary
[1] Appellant-Defendant Joshua K. Wasson appeals his convictions for two counts
of Level 6 felony failure to appear, contending that Appellee-Plaintiff the State
of Indiana (“the State”) failed to produce sufficient evidence to sustain his
convictions. Specifically, Wasson claims that the State failed to prove that he
intentionally failed to appear because Wasson produced evidence that he
allegedly overslept the day of the hearing. Due to the ample evidence that
Wasson had actual notice of the date and time of the hearing and the fact that
there were no extenuating circumstances that prevented his attendance, we
affirm.
Facts and Procedural History
[2] On March 8, 2016, Wasson, by counsel, filed a plea bargain recommendation
with the trial court for charges under two cause numbers. 1 Wasson also moved
for release on his own recognizance. Following a bond hearing on May 25,
2016, Wasson was released on his own recognizance and ordered to report
immediately to the probation department. Also on that date, Wasson, by
counsel, filed another plea bargain recommendation for both causes, and the
1
We do not include the cause numbers for the original crimes as they do not impact the outcome of this
appeal.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 34A02-1701-CR-79 | May 11, 2017 Page 2 of 5
trial court set a date on the plea recommendation for June 22, 2016, at 1:30
p.m.
[3] On June 22, 2016, Wasson failed to appear at 1:30 p.m. for the plea and
sentencing hearing that was set to be held. The trial court subsequently issued a
warrant for Wasson’s arrest. Wasson was arrested on this warrant on August
21, 2016.
[4] On July 11, 2016, the State charged Wasson in the present cause with two
counts of Level 6 felony failure to appear. A jury trial was held in this cause on
October 31, 2016. At the conclusion of the trial, the jury found Wasson guilty
on both counts of Level 6 felony failure to appear.
[5] The trial court sentenced Wasson in the first count to 913 days, with 365 days
executed in home detention and 548 days suspended to supervised probation.
On the second count, the trial court sentenced Wasson to 913 days, all
suspended to supervised probation. The sentences were ordered to be served
consecutively. This appeal follows.
Discussion and Decision
[6] In challenging his convictions for Level 6 felony failure to appear, Wasson
asserts that the State presented insufficient evidence to prove that he
intentionally failed to appear for his hearing. Our standard for reviewing
sufficiency of the evidence claims is well-settled. Tobar v. State, 740 N.E.2d 109,
111 (Ind. 2000).
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 34A02-1701-CR-79 | May 11, 2017 Page 3 of 5
In reviewing the sufficiency of the evidence, we examine only the
probative evidence and reasonable inferences that support the
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. This evidence need not
overcome every reasonable hypothesis of innocence; it is
sufficient so long as an inference may reasonably be drawn from
it to support the verdict.
Lock v. State, 971 N.E.2d 71, 74 (Ind. 2012) (internal citations and quotations
omitted). The trier of fact is responsible for resolving conflicts of testimony,
determining the weight of the evidence, and evaluating the credibility of the
witnesses. Jones v. State, 701 N.E.2d 863, 867 (Ind. Ct. App. 1998).
[7] Under Indiana Code section 35-44.1-2-9(a),
[a] person who, having been released from lawful detention on
condition that the person appear at a specified time and place in
connection with a charge of a crime, intentionally fails to appear
at that time and place commits failure to appear, a Class A
misdemeanor. However, the offense is a Level 6 felony if the
charge was a felony charge.
The purpose of the failure to appear statute is to “thwart the intentional
frustration of the administration of criminal justice.” Abdul-Musawwir v.
State, 483 N.E.2d 464, 466 (Ind. Ct. App. 1985). Moreover, “in the
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 34A02-1701-CR-79 | May 11, 2017 Page 4 of 5
absence of extenuating circumstances or lack of adequate notice, intent
not to appear may be presumed.” Id.
[8] After reviewing the record, we believe the evidence most favorable to the jury’s
verdict is more than sufficient to sustain the jury’s verdict. Wasson is only
challenging the sufficiency of the evidence regarding his intentional failure to
appear. There is no dispute that Wasson had actual knowledge that he was to
appear for a hearing on June 22, 2016 at 1:30 p.m. There is evidence that
Wasson’s trial counsel advised Wasson of the date and time of the hearing and
the consequences for not appearing. Further, there is evidence that Wasson’s
probation officer informed him of the date and time, and Wasson confirmed to
her that he was aware of such information. The fact that Wasson may or may
not have overslept on the day of the hearing does not excuse the fact that he
failed to appear. Moreover, the jury was not obligated to give any credit to
Wasson’s evidence and his claim that he merely overslept. Wasson had
adequate notice and there is no evidence that he was encumbered by any
extenuating circumstances. See Abdul-Musawwir, 483 N.E.2d 464 (upholding
conviction where defendant failed to appear at his trial scheduled for 9:30 a.m.,
but arrived several hours later claiming he was confused as to the time of his
trial and had been influenced by intoxicants).
[9] We affirm the judgment of the trial court.
Najam, J., and Riley, J., concur.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 34A02-1701-CR-79 | May 11, 2017 Page 5 of 5