Devin Brookins v. State of Indiana (mem. dec.)

MEMORANDUM DECISION
Pursuant to Ind. Appellate Rule 65(D), FILED
this Memorandum Decision shall not be
regarded as precedent or cited before any Dec 30 2016, 6:05 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
Frederick Vaiana Gregory F. Zoeller
Voyles Zahn & Paul Attorney General of Indiana
Indianapolis, Indiana
Tyler G. Banks
Deputy Attorney General
Indianapolis, Indiana
IN THE
COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA
Devin Brookins, December 30, 2016
Appellant-Defendant, Court of Appeals Case No.
49A02-1601-CR-169
v. Appeal from the Marion Superior
Court
State of Indiana, The Honorable Grant W.
Appellee-Plaintiff. Hawkins, Judge
Trial Court Cause No.
49G05-1405-MR-24581
Pyle, Judge.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 49A02-1601-CR-169 | December 30, 2016 Page 1 of 6
Statement of the Case
[1] Devin Brookins (“Brookins”) appeals his conviction by jury of murder. 1 His
sole argument is that there is insufficient evidence to support his conviction
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 Brookins’ conviction.
Facts
[3] At approximately 2:30 a.m. on May 10, 2014, Michael Willoughby
(“Willoughby”), Kenny Neal (“Neal”), and Crystal Ruiz (“Ruiz”) went to
Sully’s Bar and Grill (“Sully’s”) on the west side of Indianapolis. After having
a few drinks, Willoughby joined a group of eight to ten men that were playing a
punching-bag video game. At some point, following a verbal confrontation
between Willoughby and members of the group, Brookins punched Willoughby
in the back of the head. Soon a brawl broke out, with the large group attacking
Willoughby, Neal, and even Ruiz, who was apparently the only female
1
IND. CODE § 35-42-1-1.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 49A02-1601-CR-169 | December 30, 2016 Page 2 of 6
customer in Sully’s. Sully’s employees intervened and were able to remove
Brookins and the group from the bar.
[4] While Willoughby, Neal, and Ruiz were still inside Sully’s, Brookins attempted
to re-enter the bar with a gun. Several Sully’s employees, including cook
Ashley Cronnon (“Cronnon”), bartender Jennifer Ader (“Ader”), waitress
Shelby Madison (“Madison”), and security guard David Stephens (“Stephens”)
saw the weapon in Brookins’ hand. Brookins was the only person they saw
with a firearm that night. Stephens prevented Brookins from re-entering
Sully’s, and Brookins walked back to the parking lot.
[5] When Willoughby, Neal, and Ruiz were ready to leave the bar, they checked
the parking lot and did not see anyone. Stephens had walked them halfway to
their cars when Brookins and the group of other men re-appeared. As several
men began hitting Willoughby, Ruiz ran to get her car. By the time she pulled
her car around, Willoughby was on his hands and knees crawling towards her
while the group of men was hitting him and jumping on him. When
Willoughby tried to get up, the men pushed him back down. Ruiz yelled at the
attackers and attempted to push them away from Willoughby. Ruiz got on the
ground and pulled Willoughby towards her nearby car. As she was on the
ground with Willoughby, Brookins approached them with his gun. Ruiz
looked at Brookins and asked him to please just let them go. Brookins,
however, reached down, put his gun to the back of Willoughby’s head, and
pulled the trigger, killing Willoughby.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 49A02-1601-CR-169 | December 30, 2016 Page 3 of 6
[6] Ruiz, Madison, and Stephens all saw Brookins shoot Willoughby. Bartender
Chad Harper (“Harper”) saw Brookins approach Willoughby with a gun, heard
the shot, and saw Brookins run away from Willoughby. Neal also heard the
shot and saw Brookins run away from Willoughby with a gun in his hand.
After shooting Willoughby, Brookins jumped into the passenger seat of a white
Buick, which sped away from the parking lot.
[7] When police arrived at the scene, Neal, Cronnon, Harper, Ader, and Stephens
all identified Brookins in a photo array as either being the shooter or having a
gun. Stephens and Madison both recognized Brookins as a previous customer
at Sully’s. Later that morning, the Indianapolis Metropolitan Police
Department was told that Brookins was at a church and wanted “to turn
himself in.” (Tr. 450). When police officers arrived at the church, Brookins
was disheveled and crying. The officers arrested Brookins, who was
subsequently charged with murder.
[8] At trial, Ruiz, Madison, and Stephens identified Brookins in court and testified
that they saw Brookins shoot Willoughby in the back of the head. Harper
testified that he saw Brookins approach Willoughby with the gun and heard the
shot. Neal, Cronnon, Ader, Madison, and Stephens testified that Brookins was
the only person that they saw at Sully’s that night with a gun. A jury convicted
Brookins of murder, and the trial court found that a sentence enhancement for
Brookins’ use of a firearm had been proven. The trial court then sentenced
Brookins to fifty-two (52) years for murder, enhanced by five (5) years because
of his use of a firearm. Brookins now appeals his conviction.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 49A02-1601-CR-169 | December 30, 2016 Page 4 of 6
Decision
[9] Brookins argues that there is insufficient evidence to support his conviction
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.
[10] Brookins contends that his “mere presence . . . with Willoughby, coupled with
evidence of an altercation between Willoughby and a group . . . affiliated with
Brookins, constitutes insufficient evidence to sustain Brookins’ conviction for
murder.” (Brookins’ Br. 11-12). He directs us to Glover v. State, 255 N.E.2d 657
(Ind. 1970) in support of his contention that “[a] conviction will not be
sustained when the evidence supporting it is the existence of a possible motive
because of a prior physical altercation between the victim and the defendant
along with the defendant’s presence in the general vicinity of the victim prior to
his murder.” (Brookins’ Br. 16).
[11] In Glover, the victim’s body was found behind a tavern near some trash barrels.
He had died from stab wounds and a severed aorta. The victim had been
involved in a physical altercation with Glover prior to his death, and had been
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 49A02-1601-CR-169 | December 30, 2016 Page 5 of 6
seen in the parking lot with Glover before his murder. Although a jury
convicted Glover of murder, the Indiana Supreme Court found insufficient
evidence to support the conviction and reversed it. Id. at 659. Specifically, the
supreme court explained that “the sole evidence connecting [Glover] with the
crime [was] the existence of a possible motive to the previous scuffle, and his
presence in the general vicinity when the crime took place. This is not
sufficient.” Id.
[12] However, the facts in Glover are distinguishable from those in the case before us.
Here, Ruiz, Madison, and Stephens unequivocally testified that they saw
Brookins shoot Willoughby in the head. Harper testified that he saw Brookins
approach Willoughby with a gun, heard the shot, and saw Brookins walk away
from Willoughby. Neal testified that he heard the shot and saw Brookins run
away from Willoughby with a gun in his hand. Neal, Cronnon, Ader,
Madison, and Stephens testified that Brookins was the only person they saw
that night with a gun. This is sufficient evidence to establish Brookins’ identity
beyond a reasonable doubt and to therefore support his conviction.
[13] Affirmed.
Bradford, J., and Altice, J., concur.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 49A02-1601-CR-169 | December 30, 2016 Page 6 of 6