Darius Dashawn Anderson v. State of Indiana (mem. dec.)

MEMORANDUM DECISION
FILED
Pursuant to Ind. Appellate Rule 65(D), May 18 2017, 10:10 am
this Memorandum Decision shall not be CLERK
Indiana Supreme Court
regarded as precedent or cited before any Court of Appeals
and Tax Court
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
Sean P. Hilgendorf Curtis T. Hill, Jr.
South Bend, Indiana Attorney General
Matthew B. MacKenzie
Deputy Attorney General
Indianapolis, Indiana
IN THE
COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA
Darius Anderson, May 18, 2017
Appellant-Defendant, Court of Appeals Case No.
71A04-1611-CR-2693
v. Appeal from the St. Joseph
Superior Court
State of Indiana, The Honorable Jane Woodward
Appellee-Plaintiff Miller, Judge
Trial Court Cause No.
71D01-1603-F3-20
Crone, Judge.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 71A04-1611-CR-2693 | May 18, 2017 Page 1 of 6
Case Summary
[1] Darius Anderson appeals his convictions, following a bench trial, for two
counts of level 3 felony attempted robbery. Anderson asserts that the State
presented insufficient evidence to support his convictions. Finding the evidence
sufficient, we affirm.
Facts and Procedural History
The evidence most favorable to the convictions indicates that on March 24,
2016, Candice Kramer and her friend Tiffany Hisler drove to Mishawaka to
pick up Anderson and his friend Dwayne Johnson. Hisler and Johnson
previously met on a dating website and had been talking to each other for a
couple weeks. After picking up Anderson and Johnson, Kramer and Hisler
drove back to Hisler’s apartment in Michigan where all four of them hung out
to “get to know each other” better. Tr. at 8. Toward the end of the evening,
Kramer agreed to drive Anderson and Johnson back to Mishawaka, but Hisler
told Johnson to give Kramer ten dollars for gas money. Johnson angrily gave
Kramer ten dollars for gas but told Hisler he was going to “beat [Kramer’s]
ass.” Id. at 49. On the way back to Mishawaka, the women sat in the front seat
of the car, and the men sat in the back seat. As they were driving, Johnson
texted Hisler that their relationship was over. Kramer could hear that
Anderson and Johnson were having a mumbled conversation, but she could not
make out what they were saying to each other. Unbeknownst to the women,
Johnson and Anderson were discussing what was “about to happen.” Id. at 85.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 71A04-1611-CR-2693 | May 18, 2017 Page 2 of 6
[2] Johnson directed Kramer to drive to the very back of the parking lot by a
dumpster located in the Hickory Village Apartments. When Kramer parked the
car, Johnson and Anderson both pulled out handguns, pointed their guns at
Kramer and Hisler, and aggressively demanded both women’s belongings.
Both men reached over the seat and tried to grab Kramer’s bag that was sitting
next to the middle console. Johnson also tried to grab the gas money from
Hisler. Kramer held onto her bag, and as she tussled with both men, Johnson
stated, “[G]ive me all your shit bitch. Give me all your shit.” Id. at 41.
Johnson then exited the car and tried to open the passenger-side door where
Hisler was seated, but the door was locked. Simultaneously, Anderson exited
the car and opened the driver’s-side door and tried to pull Kramer and her bag
from the vehicle. Anderson punched Kramer in the face during the scuffle, but
she was able to keep control of her bag and shut and lock her door. Johnson
and Anderson then fled the scene together while Kramer and Hisler drove to a
church and called the police. When police eventually located Johnson and
Anderson in a nearby apartment complex, they were still together.
[3] The State charged Anderson with two counts of level 3 felony attempted
robbery. Following a bench trial, the trial court found Anderson guilty as
charged. The court sentenced Anderson to four years executed on each count,
to be served consecutively, for an aggregate sentence of eight years. This appeal
ensued.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 71A04-1611-CR-2693 | May 18, 2017 Page 3 of 6
Discussion and Decision
[4] Anderson contends that the State presented insufficient evidence to support his
attempted robbery convictions. When reviewing a claim of insufficient
evidence, we neither reweigh the evidence nor assess witness credibility. Bell v.
State, 31 N.E.3d 495, 499 (Ind. 2015). We look to the evidence and reasonable
inferences drawn therefrom that support the conviction, and will affirm if there
is probative evidence from which a reasonable factfinder could have found the
defendant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. Id. In short, if the testimony
believed by the trier of fact is enough to support the conviction, then the
reviewing court will not disturb it. Id. at 500.
[5] To convict Anderson of his offenses as charged, the State was required to prove
beyond a reasonable doubt that, while armed with a deadly weapon, Anderson
knowingly or intentionally attempted to take property from Kramer and Hisler
by threatening the use of force. See Ind. Code §§ 35-42-5-1 (robbery), 35-41-5-1
(attempt). Additionally, a “person who knowingly or intentionally aids,
induces, or causes another to commit an offense, commits that offense ….”
Ind. Code § 35-41-2-4. “It is well settled that there is no distinction between the
responsibility of a principal and an accomplice.” Stokes v. State, 919 N.E.2d
1240, 1245 (Ind. Ct. App. 2010), trans. denied. Anderson asserts that while the
evidence is sufficient to prove that Johnson1 was armed with a handgun and
1
The record indicates that Johnson pled guilty to one count of level 3 felony attempted robbery. Tr. at 74.
He testified at Anderson’s bench trial as a prosecution witness.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 71A04-1611-CR-2693 | May 18, 2017 Page 4 of 6
attempted to take property from both women by threatening the use of force,
there was an “evidentiary discrepancy” regarding whether Anderson was armed
and his level of participation in these crimes, and therefore there was
insufficient evidence to convict him as either a principal or an accomplice.
Appellant’s Br. at 8. We disagree.
[6] Kramer testified that both Anderson and Johnson were armed with handguns,
both men pointed their guns at the two victims, and both men aggressively
demanded both women’s belongings. See Tr. at 15. This testimony was
sufficient to support Anderson’s convictions of attempted robbery as a principal
with respect to both victims.
[7] Moreover, even assuming that Johnson was the principal perpetrator of the
crimes, factors generally considered in determining whether a person has aided
another in the commission of a crime include: (1) presence at the scene of the
crime; (2) companionship with another engaged in a crime; (3) failure to oppose
the commission of the crime; and (4) the course of conduct before, during, and
after the occurrence of the crime. Stokes, 919 N.E.2d at 1245. All four factors
overwhelmingly support a conclusion that Anderson knowingly or intentionally
aided Johnson in the commission of two attempted robberies. Indeed,
Anderson was no mere spectator to these crimes as he appears to suggest. The
evidence shows that after Johnson directed Kramer to drive to the back of the
parking lot, he and Anderson talked quietly about what was “about to happen.”
Tr. at 85. Anderson not only aggressively demanded both women’s belongings
while armed with a deadly weapon, but when Johnson exited the car and tried
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 71A04-1611-CR-2693 | May 18, 2017 Page 5 of 6
to get money from Hisler, Anderson also exited the car and tried to grab
Kramer’s bag, punching her in the face during the struggle. The two men fled
the scene together and were still together when located by police. In sum, the
evidence supports Anderson’s convictions as both a principal and an
accomplice. Accordingly, we affirm.
[8] Affirmed.
Baker, J., and Barnes, J., concur.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 71A04-1611-CR-2693 | May 18, 2017 Page 6 of 6