Eric Johnson v. State of Indiana (mem. dec.)

MEMORANDUM DECISION
Pursuant to Ind. Appellate Rule 65(D), FILED
this Memorandum Decision shall not be
Dec 21 2016, 6:10 am
regarded as precedent or cited before any
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
Lisa M. Johnson Gregory F. Zoeller
Brownsburg, Indiana Attorney General of Indiana
Christina D. Pace
Deputy Attorney General
Indianapolis, Indiana
IN THE
COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA
Eric Johnson, December 21, 2016
Appellant-Defendant, Court of Appeals Case No.
49A02-1602-CR-385
v. Appeal from the Marion Superior
Court
State of Indiana, The Honorable Marc T.
Appellee-Plaintiff. Rothenberg, Judge
Trial Court Cause No.
49G02-1402-MR-6525
Pyle, Judge.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 49A02-1602-CR-385 | December 21, 2016 Page 1 of 6
Statement of the Case
[1] Eric Johnson (“Johnson”) appeals his conviction by jury of murder,1 Class B
felony robbery,2 two counts of Class B felony criminal confinement,3 and Class
A misdemeanor carrying a handgun without a license. 4 His sole argument is
that there is insufficient evidence to support his convictions because the State
failed to establish his identity beyond a reasonable doubt. Concluding that the
evidence is sufficient, we affirm.
[2] We affirm.
Issue
The sole issue for our review is whether there is sufficient
evidence to support Johnson’s convictions.
Facts
[3] In February 2014, Dustin Woods (“Woods”) and Michael Norris (“Norris”)
drove from their home in Brazil, Indiana to Indianapolis in Norris’ 1994 Nissan
Altima. They intended to sell various items, including antiques, toys, and
1
IND. CODE § 35-42-1-1.
2
I.C. § 35-42-5-1.
3
I.C. § 35-42-3-3.
4
I.C. § 35-47-2-1.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 49A02-1602-CR-385 | December 21, 2016 Page 2 of 6
electronics at thrift stores and flea markets. They also planned to purchase a
large amount of marijuana to sell in Brazil.
[4] When they arrived in the Indianapolis area, the two men checked into a motel
in Plainfield. Woods contacted an acquaintance, Alejandro Mauricio
(“Mauricio”), who stopped by the motel to visit with Woods while Norris went
out. Woods told Mauricio that he was trying to find buyers for some Ecstasy.
Mauricio told Woods that he might know of a buyer. However, Mauricio later
admitted that he was planning to rob Woods. When Mauricio left the motel
early the next morning, he texted Johnson the following message: “I got one it
b[e] ready in a few hours.” (State’s Ex. 71).
[5] Later that morning, Woods and Norris purchased $1500.00 worth of marijuana
and moved to a less expensive motel on the west side of Indianapolis. A few
hours later, Mauricio and Johnson arrived at the motel in Mauricio’s car.
Johnson was wearing a black stocking cap, a black sweat suit, and removable
metallic teeth. Both men were armed. They went to Woods and Norris’ room,
brandished their guns, tied up Woods and Norris with duct tape, and robbed
them.
[6] As soon as Mauricio and Johnson ran out the door, Woods untied himself and
ran after them. As Woods leaped over the second floor balcony to pursue the
men, Johnson shot and killed him. Johnson then drove away in Mauricio’s car
with Mauricio’s phone. Mauricio drove away in Norris’ Nissan. However, he
soon discovered that he had a flat tire. Mauricio was attempting to change the
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 49A02-1602-CR-385 | December 21, 2016 Page 3 of 6
tire when he noticed a young man walking down the street and asked to use his
cell phone. Mauricio telephoned Johnson at Mauricio’s number and asked
Johnson to pick him up.
[7] Before picking up Mauricio, Johnson returned to the east side of Indianapolis to
the house that he shared with Dramaine Cotton (“Cotton”). Cotton was
watching television when Johnson came in the house wearing black clothing
and carrying a brown box. When Cotton asked Johnson where he had gotten
the box, Johnson responded that he had “hit a lick on the west side.” (Tr. 278).
Johnson changed his clothes, picked up Mauricio, and took him home.
[8] In the meantime, the young man who had lent his cell phone to Mauricio
noticed the police at the motel and approached them. The young man told the
officers about the man who had borrowed his phone, and the police were able
to look up the number that Mauricio had called. Based on this information, the
police identified Mauricio, who matched a description given by Norris. Norris
subsequently identified Mauricio in a photo array.
[9] This information led the police to Mauricio’s house, where the police found
Johnson and Cotton sitting in a car in front of the house. Johnson slid a gun
under the front passenger’s seat where he was sitting when he saw the police.
All three men were taken into custody and interviewed. A search of Johnson’s
bedroom revealed Norris’ credit and identification cards and phone as well as a
black stocking cap and a set of metallic teeth.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 49A02-1602-CR-385 | December 21, 2016 Page 4 of 6
[10] Johnson was arrested and charged with several counts, including murder, Class
B felony robbery, two counts of Class B felony criminal confinement, and Class
A misdemeanor carrying a handgun without a license. At trial, Mauricio
testified that Johnson shot Woods. The evidence further revealed that the gun
found under Johnson’s seat at the time he was arrested had been used to kill
Woods. Cell phone records indicated that Johnson’s cell phone had been near
the motel at the time the murder occurred. In addition, someone had used
Johnson’s cell phone to search Fox 59 News for information about Woods’
murder. Further, a roll of duct tape found in the vehicle Mauricio and Johnson
drove to the motel matched the duct tape used to bind Woods and Norris.
[11] The jury convicted Johnson of all counts, and the trial court sentence him to an
aggregate sentence of ninety-eight years. Johnson now appeals his convictions.
Decision
[12] Johnson argues that there is insufficient evidence to support his convictions
because the State failed to establish his identity beyond a reasonable doubt.
Our standard of review for sufficiency of the evidence claims is well settled.
We consider only the probative evidence and reasonable inferences supporting
the verdict. Drane v. State, 867 N.E.2d 144, 146 (Ind. 2007). We do not
reweigh the evidence or judge witness credibility. Id. We will affirm the
conviction unless no reasonable fact finder could find the elements of the crime
proven beyond a reasonable doubt. Id. The evidence is sufficient if an
inference may be reasonably drawn from it to support the verdict. Id. at 147.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 49A02-1602-CR-385 | December 21, 2016 Page 5 of 6
[13] Johnson argues that “the evidence is insufficient to prove beyond a reasonable
doubt that [he] participated in the offenses for which he stands convicted.”
(Johnson’s Br. 5). Specifically, according to Johnson, “[t]here are no
fingerprints or DNA connecting [him] to the offenses [and] [t]he State’s case
against him consists almost entirely of circumstantial evidence and the highly
questionable testimony of [his] co-defendant.” (Johnson’s Br. 12).
[14] However, our review of the evidence reveals that Mauricio testified that he and
Johnson went to the motel with a plan to rob Norris and Woods and that
Johnson shot Woods. Johnson slid the gun he used to kill Woods under the
front passenger’s seat of the car where he was sitting when the police arrived to
question Mauricio. Norris’ identification and credit cards and phone were
found in Johnson’s bedroom. Cell phone records indicated that Johnson was in
the area of the motel when Woods was killed. The records also indicated that
someone had used Johnson’s phone to search Fox 59 News for information
about the murder. In addition, a roll of duct tape found in the vehicle Mauricio
and Johnson drove to the motel matched the duct tape used to bind Woods and
Norris. We agree with the State that this is ample evidence from which the jury
could have inferred beyond a reasonable doubt that Johnson committed the
crimes. Johnson’s argument is simply a request that we reweigh the evidence,
which we cannot do. See Drane, 867 N.E.2d at 146.
[15] Affirmed.
Bradford, J., and Altice, J., concur.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 49A02-1602-CR-385 | December 21, 2016 Page 6 of 6