Guy Cummings v. State of Indiana

Pursuant to Ind.Appellate Rule 65(D),
this Memorandum Decision shall not be
regarded as precedent or cited before
FILED
Dec 28 2012, 9:07 am
any court except for the purpose of
establishing the defense of res judicata,
CLERK
collateral estoppel, or the law of the case. of the supreme court,
court of appeals and
tax court
ATTORNEY FOR APPELLANT: ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE:
SUSAN D. RAYL GREGORY F. ZOELLER
Smith Rayl Law Office, LLC Attorney General of Indiana
Indianapolis, Indiana
RICHARD C. WEBSTER
Deputy Attorney General
Indianapolis, Indiana
IN THE
COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA
GUY CUMMINGS, )
)
Appellant-Defendant, )
)
vs. ) No. 49A02-1205-CR-430
)
STATE OF INDIANA, )
)
Appellee-Plaintiff. )
APPEAL FROM THE MARION SUPERIOR COURT
The Honorable Reuben B. Hill, Judge
Cause No. 49F18-1112-FD-87204
December 28, 2012
MEMORANDUM DECISION - NOT FOR PUBLICATION
VAIDIK, Judge
Case Summary
Guy Cummings appeals his conviction for Class D felony theft. He argues that
the evidence is insufficient to prove that he exerted unauthorized control over Christmas
gifts taken from the trunk of an unlocked car and that he did not intend to deprive the
owner of the value or use of the property. Finding the evidence sufficient, we affirm.
Facts and Procedural History
The facts most favorable to the judgment reveal that at approximately 12:45 a.m.
on December 13, 2011, Indianapolis Metropolitan Police Department Officer Justin
Musser was parked in his marked patrol car in the Mars Hill area of Indianapolis
observing traffic violations. Officer Musser saw a male, later identified as Cummings,
walking down Perry Street. “[A]ll of a sudden,” Cummings jumped a fence into the yard
of a residence and disappeared from Officer Musser’s sight. Tr. p. 5. After about a
minute, Cummings re-appeared carrying two white shopping bags, which he carried
behind the detached garage into the alley and placed next to the garage. Cummings was
not carrying anything when Officer Musser first saw him. Cummings then walked back
into the yard and again disappeared from Officer Musser’s sight. Cummings shortly re-
appeared carrying two more bags to the back of the garage. Suspicious, Officer Musser
drove over to Cummings’ location to investigate.
As Officer Musser drove toward the alley, Cummings “still had the two bags and .
. . dropped them.” Id. at 7. “About that time,” Officer Musser pulled into the alley, at
which point Cummings saw him and fled. Id. Officer Musser activated his lights to
identify himself, but Cummings continued to flee through several yards and disappeared
2
from Officer Musser’s view. Officer Musser got out of his car and yelled for Cummings
to stop, but Cummings was gone. Officer Musser radioed to other police units in the area
that Cummings was fleeing and gave a description of Cummings as well as his direction
of flight.
Officer Eric Forestal was patrolling the area when he heard Officer Musser’s radio
call. Officer Forestal apprehended an out-of-breath Cummings and took him into
custody. Officer Musser went to their location and identified Cummings.
Officer Musser then returned to the alley where Cummings had stashed the bags.
Detective Jeremiah Lokan also came to the scene. He and Officer Musser spoke with the
homeowner, Jessie Logston. Logston went to the alley behind his garage where
Cummings had placed the bags. Logston identified the contents of the bags—blankets
and bottles of Tide detergent—as belonging to him. Logston explained that they were
Christmas gifts for his son and that he kept them in the trunk of his unlocked vehicle.
Logston said that he did not give anyone permission to enter his car and take his property.
Logston recognized Cummings from the neighborhood but did not know who he was.
The State charged Cummings with Class D felony theft, Class A misdemeanor
resisting law enforcement, and Class B misdemeanor unauthorized entry of a motor
vehicle. A bench trial was held. Cummings testified in his own defense that as he was
walking by Logston’s house, “the trunk was open” and “there was [sic] bags sitting by
the back of the car.” Id. at 36. So, Cummings “jumped the fence to see what it was.” Id.
Cummings said that he “thought about taking the objects,” but he “consciously set those
bags down and walked away from them on [his] own with no help from any officer.” Id.
3
at 37, 40. Cummings admitted to fleeing from Officer Musser and that it “was a bad
decision to pick up anything that didn’t belong to me, a very bad decision.” Id. at 37.
The trial court found Cummings guilty of all three charges and sentenced him to
910 days for theft, 365 days for resisting law enforcement, and 180 days for unauthorized
entry of a motor vehicle, to be served concurrently.
Cummings now appeals his theft conviction only.
Discussion and Decision
Cummings contends that the evidence is insufficient to support his conviction for
Class D felony theft. When reviewing the sufficiency of the evidence to support a
conviction, we must consider only the probative evidence and reasonable inferences
supporting the judgment. Drane v. State, 867 N.E.2d 144, 146 (Ind. 2007). We do not
assess witness credibility or reweigh the evidence. Id. When confronted with conflicting
evidence, we consider it most favorably to the trial court’s ruling. Id. We affirm the
conviction unless “no reasonable fact-finder could find the elements of the crime proven
beyond a reasonable doubt.” Id. (quotation omitted). It is not necessary that the evidence
overcome every reasonable hypothesis of innocence. Id. at 147. The evidence is
sufficient if an inference may reasonably be drawn from it to support the judgment. Id.Circumstantial evidence may support a theft conviction. Rogers v. State, 902 N.E.2d
871, 875 (Ind. Ct. App. 2009).
In order to convict Cummings of theft, the State had to prove that Cummings
knowingly exerted unauthorized control over Logston’s property with intent to deprive
Logston of any part of its value or use. Ind. Code § 35-43-4-2(a); Appellant’s App. p. 19.
4
Cummings argues that the evidence is insufficient to support his conviction because he
“was no longer exerting control over the bags” when he was approached by police and
“the bags were always on Mr. Logston’s property.” Appellant’s Br. p. 8.
To “exert control over property” means to “obtain, take, carry, drive, lead away,
conceal, abandon, sell, convey, encumber, or possess property.” Ind. Code § 35-43-4-
1(a). A person’s control over the property of another person is “unauthorized” if it is
exerted without the other person’s consent. I.C. § 35-43-4-1(b)(1). The record shows
that Logston had Christmas presents in the trunk of his unlocked car and did not give
anyone permission to enter his car and take the gifts. Officer Musser saw Cummings
enter Logston’s property empty-handed and then disappear from his sight. Within a
minute, Cummings re-appeared carrying two white shopping bags, which he carried
behind the garage and placed next to the garage. Cummings again disappeared from
Officer Musser’s sight but shortly re-appeared carrying two more bags to the back of the
garage. From Cummings’ actions, the trier of fact could reasonably conclude that
Cummings knowingly exerted unauthorized control over Logston’s property by removing
the property from the trunk of Logston’s car and carrying it behind Logston’s garage.
Even assuming that Cummings had already placed the bags down when he first spotted
Officer Musser and began to flee, Cummings’ actions in removing the property from the
trunk of Logston’s car and hiding it behind the garage support a reasonable inference that
Cummings intended to deprive Logston of the use and value of his property.
As for Cummings’ argument that he never removed any of the items from
Logston’s property, we note that one cannot abandon an attempt to commit theft after the
5
theft has already been completed. Finley v. State, 525 N.E.2d 608, 609 (Ind. 1988).
When Cummings removed the items from the trunk of Logston’s car, he had already
completed the crime of exercising control over Logston’s property. See id. (concluding
that the defendant had already completed the crime of theft when he walked out the back
door of a house carrying a television set and, upon realizing that a police officer was
watching him, placed the television set on top of a trash container). Here, Cummings was
interrupted by Officer Musser before he could remove any of the property from behind
Logston’s garage. Accordingly, the fact that Officer Musser interrupted Cummings
before he could remove the items from Logston’s property is immaterial. The evidence is
sufficient to support Cummings’ theft conviction.
Affirmed.
BAILEY, J., and BROWN, J., concur.
6