Jeremy Alan Riddle v. State of Indiana (mem. dec.)

MEMORANDUM DECISION
Pursuant to Ind. Appellate Rule 65(D),
this Memorandum Decision shall not be
regarded as precedent or cited before any
FILED
court except for the purpose of establishing Apr 04 2017, 8:46 am
the defense of res judicata, collateral CLERK
Indiana Supreme Court
estoppel, or the law of the case. Court of Appeals
and Tax Court
ATTORNEY FOR APPELLANT ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE
Evan K. Hammond Curtis T. Hill, Jr.
Marion, Indiana Attorney General of Indiana
Ellen H. Meilaender
Deputy Attorney General
Indianapolis, Indiana
IN THE
COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA
Jeremy Alan Riddle, April 4, 2017
Appellant-Defendant, Court of Appeals Case No.
27A02-1606-CR-1491
v. Appeal from the Grant Superior
Court
State of Indiana, The Honorable Jeffrey D. Todd,
Appellee-Plaintiff. Judge
Trial Court Cause No.
27D01-1512-F2-12
Riley, Judge.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 27A02-1606-CR-1491 | April 4, 2017 Page 1 of 11
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
[1] Appellant-Defendant, Jeremy Alan Riddle (Riddle), appeals his convictions for
burglary, a Level 2 felony, Ind. Code §§ 35-43-2-1(3)(A), -41-2-4; robbery while
armed with a deadly weapon, a Level 3 felony, I.C. §§ 35-42-5-1, -41-2-4;
conspiracy to commit burglary, a Level 2 felony, I.C. §§ 35-43-2-1(3)(A), -41-5-
2; and conspiracy to commit robbery while armed with a deadly weapon, a
Level 3 felony, I.C. §§ 35-42-5-1, -41-5-2.
[2] We affirm.
ISSUE
[3] Riddle raises one issue on appeal, which we restate as follows: Whether the
State presented sufficient evidence to support Riddle’s convictions beyond a
reasonable doubt.
FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY
[4] On the morning of November 11, 2015, Pamela Balsis (Balsis) was getting
ready to join her next-door neighbor, John Holloway (John), for their daily cup
of coffee at his home when her dog began barking. The dog’s barking alerted
Balsis to her front window, where she noticed a white car parked in front of her
house that “didn’t belong” in her small neighborhood in Marion, Grant
County, Indiana. (Tr. Vol. I, p. 57). Balsis observed that there was a white
man with dark facial hair sitting in the backseat, wearing a hooded sweatshirt,
who kept looking back over his shoulder in the direction of John’s house. After
some time, Balsis determined that she would get dressed and then “call
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 27A02-1606-CR-1491 | April 4, 2017 Page 2 of 11
somebody” about the suspicious vehicle. (Tr. Vol. I, p. 61). However, by the
time she finished and looked out her window, the vehicle was gone.
[5] Meanwhile, next door, eighty-three-year-old John and his sixty-one-year-old
son, Larry Holloway (Larry), had been sitting in John’s garage smoking
cigarettes. Larry suffers from a plethora of serious medical issues and, at the
time, had recently been released from the hospital. Larry’s wife, Leanne
Riddle, had passed away the prior year, so Larry lived alone. Thus, he was
temporarily living with John until he was recovered well enough to go home
and care for himself. Shortly before 9:00 a.m., John and Larry heard a very
loud banging coming from the front door; John got up to investigate, while
Larry remained in the garage. John observed “a young man”—white and
appearing to be in his twenties—standing on his front porch, who asked John
whether he had any work available, such as raking leaves. (Tr. Vol. I, p. 78).
When John explained that he was not in need of any services, the stranger
opened John’s screen door, pulled out a gun from his pocket, stepped into
John’s living room, and demanded money and drugs.
[6] The gunman seemed “real nervous” and was “shakin’ [the gun] back and forth
and pointin’ it towards the floor.” (Tr. Vol. I, p. 79). When John informed the
intruder that he had neither drugs nor money, the man specifically inquired
about Larry. Around that time, sensing that something was not right with his
father, Larry entered from the garage. When confronted with the gunman’s
demand for money and drugs, Larry responded that it would be in the young
man’s best interests to turn around and leave their house. The perpetrator
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 27A02-1606-CR-1491 | April 4, 2017 Page 3 of 11
repeatedly stated that he did not “wanna do this” but was being forced to do so
by people whom he refused to identify when pressed by John and Larry. (Tr.
Vol. I, p. 79). Nevertheless, he seemed insistent on procuring drugs from Larry,
stating that “they told me you had prescription drugs.” (Tr. Vol. I, p. 112).
Larry, however, convinced the gunman that his narcotic painkillers had been
taken away at the hospital.
[7] Because the gunman seemed scared and dejected, Larry made a sudden move
in an attempt to smack him, which only prompted the perpetrator to cock his
pistol and point it at Larry. Larry heeded the gunman’s directive to “back off”
and the gunman subsequently indicated his intent to leave. (Tr. Vol. I, p. 114).
The gunman ordered John and Larry to go wait in the bedroom until he left,
but John and Larry refused. Instead, they agreed to simply walk to the end of
the hallway, which they did, and at which point John retrieved his firearm from
his bedroom. When they walked back into the living room, the intruder had
fled. Larry looked out the window and saw the perpetrator entering the
backseat of a white vehicle, in which there also appeared to be another
passenger in addition to the driver. John noticed that his wallet, which had
been on the kitchen counter and within reach of the gunman, was gone. It had
contained $213.00 in cash. At 8:54 a.m., John and Larry called the police.
[8] Later that morning, at 10:10 a.m., Tiffany Riddle (Tiffany), an inmate at the
Howard County Jail, called her husband, Riddle. At the beginning of the call,
an automated message informed Tiffany and Riddle that their call would be
recorded and subject to monitoring by law enforcement personnel. Despite this
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 27A02-1606-CR-1491 | April 4, 2017 Page 4 of 11
warning, and as they had done in prior telephone conversations, Tiffany and
Riddle discussed the efforts that Riddle was undertaking to raise money to bail
Tiffany out of jail. Riddle assured Tiffany that he was “on a mission to get
[her] out” and that he had already “done several things [he] could go to prison
for fifty years.” (Tr. Vol. I, p. 179). Riddle elaborated that he, along with
Tiffany’s brother, Ronald Reed (Reed), had “tried to do something that
morning” that could have been worth thousands of dollars, but Reed had
“screwed it up.” (Tr. Vol. I, p. 190). Believing that Riddle had implicated
himself in a crime, the investigator listening to the phone calls accessed the
Marion Police Department’s call log and discovered the reported robbery earlier
that morning at John’s home. Accordingly, the investigator advised the Marion
Police Department to further investigate Riddle and Reed as suspects in the
case.
[9] Based on the information received through the jailhouse phone calls, and
considering the fact that John and Larry would have recognized Riddle—who
is Larry’s step-grandson, the Marion police officers determined that it was likely
that Reed was the acting gunman. Accordingly, the officers assembled a photo
array that included Reed’s photograph, and both John and Larry separately
identified him as the perpetrator. 1 Furthermore, in the course of investigating
1
Initially, Larry provided the police officers with a photograph of a possible suspect, Brandon Vandiver
(Vandiver), who, according to Larry, “really looked close to what the guy looked like.” (Tr. Vol. I, p. 129).
Vandiver was related to Larry’s deceased wife, Leanne Riddle, through marriage. Because Vandiver was
incarcerated at the time of the instant offense, he was quickly cleared as a suspect. Moreover, Larry
indicated that as soon as he saw the photo array, he realized that he had been mistaken in believing that
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 27A02-1606-CR-1491 | April 4, 2017 Page 5 of 11
other crimes involving Riddle, officers searched the property where Riddle had
been living on November 11, 2015, and discovered a Taurus nine-millimeter
semi-automatic handgun with a brushed silver top and black handle stowed in a
well-casing. Larry confirmed that the recovered firearm “look[ed] just like the
one that [Reed] pointed at [him].” (Tr. Vol. I, p. 125). The officers also
retrieved cell phone tower data and determined that Riddle’s cell phone was
used in the general vicinity of John’s home shortly after the commission of the
present offense.
[10] On December 9, 2015, the State filed an Information. At some point, it appears
that the Information was amended to charge Riddle with the following: Count
I, aiding, inducing, or causing a burglary, a Level 2 felony, I.C. §§ 35-43-2-
1(3)(A), -41-2-4; Count II, aiding, inducing, or causing a robbery while armed
with a deadly weapon, a Level 3 felony, I.C. §§ 35-42-5-1, -41-2-4; Count III,
conspiracy to commit burglary, a Level 2 felony, I.C. §§ 35-43-2-1(3)(A), -41-5-
2; and Count IV, conspiracy to commit robbery while armed with a deadly
weapon, a Level 3 felony, I.C. §§ 35-42-5-1, -41-5-2. 2 On March 14 through 17,
2016, the trial court conducted a jury trial. At the close of the evidence, the jury
returned a guilty verdict on all four Counts. On May 31, 2016, the trial court
held a sentencing hearing and imposed the maximum sentence on each Count.
Vandiver could have been the suspect because when he saw Reed in the photo array, it was “[l]ike he was
standin’ right there in front of me, and I could see those eyes.” (Tr. Vol. I, pp. 131-32).
2
The amended version of the Information is not included in the appellate record.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 27A02-1606-CR-1491 | April 4, 2017 Page 6 of 11
Accordingly, the trial court ordered thirty years each for the burglary and
conspiracy to commit burglary charges and sixteen years each on the armed
robbery and conspiracy to commit armed robbery charges. The trial court
ordered the sentences to run concurrently, resulting in an aggregate term of
thirty years, fully executed in the Indiana Department of Correction.
[11] Riddle now appeals. Additional facts will be provided as necessary.
DISCUSSION AND DECISION
[12] Riddle challenges the sufficiency of the evidence supporting his convictions. In
reviewing such a claim, our standard is well settled. Our court neither reweighs
evidence nor assesses the credibility of witnesses. Stewart v. State, 866 N.E.2d
858, 862 (Ind. Ct. App. 2007). We consider the evidence most favorable to the
conviction, along with any reasonable inferences that may be drawn from that
evidence. Id. “We will affirm a conviction if there is substantial evidence of
probative value supporting each element of the crime from which a reasonable
trier of fact could have found the defendant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.”
Id.[13] In order to convict Riddle of burglary as a Level 2 felony (Count I), the State
was required to prove that he knowingly or intentionally aided, induced, or
caused another person—i.e., Reed—to break and enter John’s home with the
intent to commit a felony or theft, while armed with a deadly weapon. I.C. §§
35-43-2-1(3)(A), -41-2-4. As to the related charge of conspiracy to commit
burglary as a Level 2 felony (Count III), the State had to prove that Riddle
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 27A02-1606-CR-1491 | April 4, 2017 Page 7 of 11
agreed with another person—i.e., Reed—to commit the burglary and that an
overt act was performed in furtherance of the agreement. I.C. §§ 35-43-2-
1(3)(A), -41-5-2. For Riddle’s conviction of Level 3 felony robbery while armed
with a deadly weapon (Count II), the burden was on the State to prove that
Riddle knowingly or intentionally aided, induced, or caused another person—
again, Reed—to knowingly or intentionally take property from John or Larry
by using or threatening the use of force or by putting them in fear, while armed
with a deadly weapon. I.C. §§ 35-42-5-1, -41-2-4. Finally, concerning Riddle’s
conviction for conspiracy to commit armed robbery (Count IV), the State had to
prove that Riddle agreed with another person—i.e., Reed—to commit the
armed robbery and that an overt act was performed in furtherance of the
agreement. I.C. §§ 35-42-5-1, -41-5-2.
[14] For each of these four charges, Riddle challenges only the identification
element—that is, he insists that the State failed to prove beyond a reasonable
doubt that he was the perpetrator of each of the aforementioned offenses. In
fact, he claims that there is no evidence that Riddle was present at the crime
scene during the burglary/robbery or at any other point and that Reed was the
only suspect identified. Furthermore, Riddle contends that while the jailhouse
phone calls did discuss other specific victims in his criminal activity spree, John
and Larry were not explicitly mentioned. Thus, according to Riddle, “[t]he
suggestion that [he] had any involvement with the above-mentioned crimes is
merely speculation and cannot pass the reasonable doubt standard.”
(Appellant’s Br. p. 11). We disagree.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 27A02-1606-CR-1491 | April 4, 2017 Page 8 of 11
[15] As with the other elements of a crime, a perpetrator’s identity may be
established entirely by circumstantial evidence and the logical inferences drawn
therefrom. Bustamante v. State, 667 N.E.2d 1313, 1317 (Ind. 1990). On appeal,
our court “need not determine whether the circumstantial evidence is adequate
to overcome every reasonable hypothesis of innocence, but rather whether
inferences may be reasonably drawn from that evidence which support the
verdict beyond a reasonable doubt.” Id. at 1318. Here, the evidence most
favorable to the jury’s verdict establishes that Larry was married to Riddle’s
grandmother for a decade. During that time, Larry and Riddle frequently
interacted, and Riddle was aware that Larry suffered from a multitude of health
problems that required him to take narcotic pain medicine. As a stranger to
John and Larry, Reed (who is Riddle’s brother-in-law) would not have had
personal knowledge that Larry was temporarily living with John due to a recent
hospitalization or that Larry would be in possession of narcotic painkillers.
Yet, when Reed entered John’s house on the morning of November 11, 2015,
he had clearly received information that Larry would be there, and he
repeatedly demanded that Larry surrender his narcotic painkillers. When Larry
indicated that he was not in possession of such, Reed was adamant that “they
told me you had prescription drugs.” (Tr. Vol. I, p. 112).
[16] Merely an hour after Reed’s failed attempt to steal Larry’s medication, Tiffany
called Riddle from jail. Although Riddle was hesitant to give specific details
about the events of the morning, he reassured Tiffany that he was “on a mission
to get [her] out” of jail and that he had already “done several things [he] could
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 27A02-1606-CR-1491 | April 4, 2017 Page 9 of 11
go to prison for fifty years.” (Tr. Vol. I, p. 179). Riddle explained that he and
Reed had “tried to do something that morning” that could have been worth
thousands of dollars, but Reed had “screwed it up.” (Tr. Vol. I, p. 190).
Furthermore, evidence from prior jailhouse phone calls between Tiffany and
Riddle also indicate that Riddle and Reed had committed other crimes together
in the days leading up to the robbery/burglary of John and Larry. In these
calls, Riddle specifically referred to Reed as his partner and a professional and
discussed with Tiffany having to split the proceeds of criminal undertakings
with Reed.
[17] Although it is undisputed that Reed was the only individual to enter John’s
house and demand money and drugs, Balsis and Larry both testified that along
with the driver, there was at least one other person in the back seat of the white
getaway car. Balsis testified that this individual kept checking over his shoulder
in the direction of John’s house. The State also presented evidence that
Riddle’s cell phone had been used a short time after the crime was committed
within the relative vicinity of John’s house. Finally, the evidence reveals that
the police officers recovered a firearm on Riddle’s property, which contained
Riddle’s DNA. The nine-millimeter semi-automatic handgun had a brushed
silver top and a black handle, and Larry immediately identified it as appearing
to be the same weapon that Reed had used in the commission of the burglary
and robbery. Accordingly, we conclude that the evidence provides ample
support for the jury’s determination that Riddle acted as both the accomplice
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 27A02-1606-CR-1491 | April 4, 2017 Page 10 of 11
(i.e., he aided, induced, or caused Reed to commit the offenses) and the co-
conspirator in this case.
CONCLUSION
[18] Based on the foregoing, we conclude that the State presented sufficient evidence
to support Riddle’s convictions for burglary, robbery while armed with a deadly
weapon, conspiracy to commit burglary, and conspiracy to commit robbery
while armed with a deadly weapon beyond a reasonable doubt.
[19] Affirmed.
[20] Crone, J. and Altice, J. concur
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 27A02-1606-CR-1491 | April 4, 2017 Page 11 of 11