Michael Wayne Norred v. State of Indiana

Pursuant to Ind.Appellate Rule 65(D),
Oct 29 2013, 5:39 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:
JARED MICHEL THOMAS GREGORY F. ZOELLER
Evansville, Indiana Attorney General of Indiana
JOSEPH Y. HO
Deputy Attorney General
Indianapolis, Indiana
IN THE
COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA
MICHAEL WAYNE NORRED, )
)
Appellant-Defendant, )
)
vs. ) No. 82A01-1303-CR-94
)
STATE OF INDIANA, )
)
Appellee-Plaintiff. )
APPEAL FROM THE VANDERBURGH SUPERIOR COURT
The Honorable Jill R. Marcrum, Magistrate
Cause No. 82D05-1207-CM-3368
October 29, 2013
MEMORANDUM DECISION - NOT FOR PUBLICATION
VAIDIK, Judge
Case Summary
Michael Norred appeals his conviction for Class C misdemeanor panhandling
arguing that the evidence is insufficient to support it. Because the evidence shows that he
was talking to motorists in order to get money to return to Illinois, we conclude that the
evidence is sufficient and therefore affirm.
Facts and Procedural History
On June 23, 2012, Vanderburgh County Sheriff’s Deputy Brandon Rolley and
another deputy were dispatched to the intersection of Red Bank Road and Lloyd
Expressway in Evansville to respond to complaints that an individual was causing a traffic
hazard. When Deputy Rolley arrived, he saw Norred walking along the westbound lanes
of Lloyd Expressway, talking to motorists. Deputy Rolley parked his car, approached
Norred, and asked him what he was doing. Norred told Deputy Rolley that “he was
attempting to try to get money back [sic] to go back to Illinois.” Tr. p. 23. Deputy Rolley
could not hear the conversation Norred had with the motorists.
The State charged Norred with Class C misdemeanor panhandling. A bench trial
was held. In his defense, Norred stated that he was holding a sign that said, “Homeless
hungry vet. Please help. God Bless.” Id. at 31. According to Norred, he only spoke to
motorists when they asked him questions first, and he did not ask them for money. He did
admit to receiving a little money from motorists while he was there.
The trial court found Norred guilty of Class C misdemeanor panhandling. 1 Id. at
1
At the beginning of trial, Norred filed a motion to dismiss on the basis that the panhandling statute
was unconstitutional. The trial court took the motion under advisement and stated it would make its
determination after the trial was held. In convicting Norred, the trial court impliedly determined that the
statute was constitutional. Norred does not argue in this appeal that the statute is unconstitutional.
2
46. The trial court sentenced him to thirty days in the Vanderburgh County Jail, all
suspended on the condition that Norred complete sixteen hours of community service.
Norred now appeals.
Discussion and Decision
Norred claims that the evidence is insufficient to support his conviction for Class C
misdemeanor panhandling. When reviewing the sufficiency of the evidence, we neither
reweigh the evidence nor determine the credibility of witnesses. Bailey v. State, 979
N.E.2d 133, 135 (Ind. 2012). We look solely to the evidence most favorable to the
judgment together with all reasonable inferences to be drawn therefrom. Id. A conviction
will be affirmed if the probative evidence and reasonable inferences to be drawn from the
evidence could have allowed a reasonable trier of fact to find the defendant guilty beyond
a reasonable doubt. Id.Panhandling is defined as soliciting an individual on a street or in another public
place by requesting an immediate donation of money or something else of value. Ind. Code
§ 35-45-17-1(a). The phrase “soliciting an individual” includes soliciting an individual by
making an oral request. The phrase does not include an act of passively standing or sitting
while displaying a sign or other indication that a donation is being sought or without
making an oral request other than in response to an inquiry by another person. Id. § 35-
45-17-1(b)-(c).
To convict Norred of Class C misdemeanor panhandling, the State had to prove that
he knowingly panhandled a motorist while the individual being solicited was in a motor
vehicle that was parked or stopped on a public street or alley (unless the person soliciting
3
the individual had the approval to do so by a unit of local government that has jurisdiction
over the public streets or alley). Id. § 35-45-17-2(2)(C). A person soliciting money “may
ply their craft lawfully by holding up a sign that says ‘give me money’ . . . so long as one
does not voice the words to the effect of ‘give me money.’” Alvies v. State, 895 N.E.2d
1237, 1241 (Ind. Ct. App. 2008).
Here, Deputy Rolley testified that he observed Norred talking to motorists in their
cars. Norred also admitted that he was trying to get money to return to Illinois. Moreover,
Norred told the deputy that he received some money from motorists while he was at the
intersection.
Although Norred claims that he was merely standing in the median of the
intersection holding a sign and that he only spoke to motorists when they spoke to him
first, this is merely a request for us to reweigh the evidence, which we cannot do. Deputy
Rolley observed him knowingly solicit an individual who was in a motor vehicle that was
stopped on a public street.
Based on the evidence most favorable to the judgment, we conclude that the
evidence is sufficient to sustain Norred’s conviction for Class C misdemeanor panhandling.
Affirmed.
BAKER, J., and FRIEDLANDER, J., concur.
4