Gerald M. Joyce v. State of Indiana

Pursuant to Ind.Appellate Rule 65(D), Oct 31 2013, 5:29 am
this Memorandum Decision shall not be
regarded as precedent or cited before
any 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:
TIMOTHY J. O’CONNOR GREGORY F. ZOELLER
O’Connor & Auersch Attorney General of Indiana
Indianapolis, Indiana
KATHERINE MODESITT COOPER
Deputy Attorney General
Indianapolis, Indiana
IN THE
COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA
GERALD M. JOYCE, )
)
Appellant-Defendant, )
)
vs. ) No. 49A02-1302-CR-120
)
STATE OF INDIANA, )
)
Appellee-Plaintiff. )
APPEAL FROM MARION SUPERIOR COURT
The Honorable Robert R. Altice, Jr., Judge
Cause No. 49G02-1108-FC-60850
October 31, 2013
MEMORANDUM DECISION - NOT FOR PUBLICATION
MAY, Judge
Gerald M. Joyce appeals his convictions of Class C felony burglary1 and Class D
felony theft,2 alleging the evidence was insufficient to prove he was the person who
committed the crime. We affirm.
FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY
Between 5:00 p.m. on May 20, 2011, and 6:00 a.m. on May 21, 2011, someone broke
into a large commercial building on Main Street in Speedway and removed much of the
copper wiring from the building. The owner estimated the missing wire would have weighed
between 600 and 700 pounds. Several car radios and a set of small torches were also taken.
A contractor who worked in the building every day noticed that red bolt cutters had
been moved from the location where he had hung them on the wall before leaving work on
May 20. A latent fingerprint on the bolt cutters matched Joyce’s, and police learned that, just
after 8:00 a.m. on May 21, 2011, Joyce sold 669 pounds of copper wiring to Circle City
Metal Recycling, which is located approximately five miles from the burglarized commercial
building.
The State initially charged Joyce with burglary and theft, and then added an habitual
offender allegation. A jury found Joyce guilty of burglary and theft, and Joyce admitted
being an habitual offender. The court ordered an aggregate ten-year sentence.
DISCUSSION AND DECISION
Joyce alleges the State presented insufficient evidence he committed the burglary and
1
Ind. Code § 35-43-2-1.
2
Ind. Code § 35-43-4-2.
2
theft at issue.
When reviewing the sufficiency of the evidence to support a conviction, we
must consider only the probative evidence and reasonable inferences
supporting the conviction. Drane v. State, 867 N.E.2d 144, 146 (Ind. 2007).
We do not assess witness credibility or reweigh the evidence. Id. We consider
conflicting evidence 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. (quoting Jenkins v. State, 726
N.E.2d 268, 270 (Ind. 2000)). 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
conviction. Id.Identification testimony need not necessarily be unequivocal to sustain a
conviction. Heeter v. State, 661 N.E.2d 612, 616 (Ind. Ct. App. 1996).
Elements of offenses and identity may be established entirely by circumstantial
evidence and the logical inferences drawn therefrom. Bustamante v. State, 557
N.E.2d 1313, 1317 (Ind. 1990). As with other sufficiency matters, we will not
weigh the evidence or resolve questions of credibility when determining
whether the identification evidence is sufficient to sustain a conviction. Id.Rather, we examine the evidence and the reasonable inferences therefrom that
support the conviction. Id.Holloway v. State, 983 N.E.2d 1175, 1177-78 (Ind. Ct. App. 2013).
The State presented evidence that Joyce’s fingerprint matched a fingerprint found on a
pair of bolt cutters that were inside the burglarized building. Those bolt cutters belonged to
the business that owned the building and, after the burglary, were in a different location than
where they had been placed the night before the burglary. An employee of the business, who
had been using the bolt cutters every day for two months, testified that no one else had used
them during that time and that he did not know Joyce or give him permission to use the bolt
cutters. That evidence permits a reasonable inference that Joyce was in the building and
handled the bolt cutters on the night in question.
3
In addition, the owner of the building estimated that six or seven hundred pounds of
copper wiring had been removed from the building during the theft, and the records from a
metal salvage business indicated Joyce had sold 669 pounds of wiring to the salvage
company hours after the burglary. Joyce’s possession of the stolen property so soon after it
was stolen and Joyce’s fingerprint on a tool inside the crime scene together provided
sufficient evidence Joyce committed the burglary and theft in question. See id. at 1179(affirming conviction of burglary and theft based on circumstantial evidence). Joyce’s
arguments to the contrary are invitations for us to reweigh the evidence, which we cannot do.
See Drane, 867 N.E.2d at 146 (appellate court cannot reweigh evidence or judge credibility
of witnesses). Accordingly, we affirm.
Affirmed.
BAILEY, J., and BRADFORD, J., concur.
4