Darryl Abron v. State of Indiana (mem. dec.)

MEMORANDUM DECISION
Pursuant to Ind. Appellate Rule 65(D), FILED
this Memorandum Decision shall not be
regarded as precedent or cited before any May 31 2018, 10:57 am
court except for the purpose of establishing CLERK
Indiana Supreme Court
the defense of res judicata, collateral Court of Appeals
and Tax Court
estoppel, or the law of the case.
ATTORNEY FOR APPELLANT ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE
Ellen M. O’Connor Curtis T. Hill, Jr.
Marion County Public Defender Agency Attorney General of Indiana
Indianapolis, Indiana
Michael Gene Worden
Deputy Attorney General
Indianapolis, Indiana
IN THE
COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA
Darryl Abron, May 31, 2018
Appellant-Defendant, Court of Appeals Case No.
49A04-1709-CR-2318
v. Appeal from the Marion Superior
Court
State of Indiana, The Honorable Ronnie Huerta,
Appellee-Plaintiff Commissioner
Trial Court Cause No.
49G09-1704-F6-14350
Baker, Judge.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 49A04-1709-CR-2318 | May 31, 2018 Page 1 of 4
[1] Darryl Abron appeals his conviction for Level 6 Felony Theft,1 arguing that the
evidence is insufficient to support his conviction. Finding the evidence
sufficient, we affirm.
[2] On April 18, 2017, Bradley Bastin, an employee at an Indianapolis Kroger
store, observed Abron shopping in the cold pack deli case. Bastin saw Abron
reach into the deli case and pull out a couple of packages of chicken. Abron
turned around, lifted his shirt, and placed the chicken packages in the back of
his pants. Abron walked away with the chicken packages concealed in his
clothing and proceeded to the front of the store. Bastin followed him, and
when Abron reached the front of the store, Bastin confronted him. At that
point, Abron was over thirty feet away from an open register and had made no
attempt to pay for the merchandise. Abron became irate, eventually knocking a
loss prevention officer to the floor. Store personnel called police, who arrested
Abron.
[3] On April 18, 2017, the State charged Abron with Class A misdemeanor theft,
Class A misdemeanor battery resulting in bodily injury, and Class B
misdemeanor battery; the State also filed a charging information enhancing the
theft charge to a Level 6 felony based on Abron’s prior criminal history.
Abron’s jury trial took place on June 21, 2017. The jury found Abron guilty of
theft and not guilty of the remaining charges. The jury also found that the State
1
Ind. Code § 35-43-4-2(a).
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 49A04-1709-CR-2318 | May 31, 2018 Page 2 of 4
proved Abron’s criminal history beyond a reasonable doubt, enhancing the theft
conviction to a Level 6 felony. On July 19, 2017, the trial court sentenced
Abron to 730 days imprisonment. Abron now appeals.
[4] Abron’s sole argument on appeal is that the evidence is insufficient to support
his conviction. When reviewing the sufficiency of the evidence to support a
conviction, we must consider only the probative evidence and reasonable
inferences supporting the conviction and will neither assess witness credibility
nor reweigh the evidence. Drane v. State, 867 N.E.2d 144, 146 (Ind. 2007). We
will affirm unless no reasonable factfinder could find the elements of the crime
proved beyond a reasonable doubt. Id. To convict Abron of theft, the State was
required to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that he knowingly or intentionally
exerted unauthorized control over the property of another person with the
intent to deprive the other person of any part of its value or use. I.C. § 35-43-4-
2(a).2
[5] Abron challenges only whether the evidence supports a conclusion that he had
the intent to deprive the Kroger store of the chicken. A defendant’s intent may
be based solely on circumstantial evidence. E.g., Purvis v. State, 87 N.E.3d 1119,
1124 (Ind. Ct. App. 2017). A defendant’s intent may be inferred from his
conduct and the natural and usual sequence to which such conduct logically
2
Abron does not challenge the evidence that enhanced the theft conviction to a Level 6 felony.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 49A04-1709-CR-2318 | May 31, 2018 Page 3 of 4
and reasonably points. E.g., Long v. State, 867 N.E.2d 606, 614 (Ind. Ct. App.
2007).
[6] Here, Bastin observed Abron remove two packages of chicken from the deli
case, lift his shirt, and place them in the back of his pants. Abron then walked
to the store exit with the merchandise still concealed under his clothing. When
confronted, he had passed all points for payment and had made no attempt to
pay. A reasonable factfinder could infer from this evidence that Abron
intended to remove the chicken from the store without paying for it. See
Chambliss v. State, 746 N.E.2d 73, 78 (Ind. 2001) (defendant’s concealment of
lunch meat under his coat while inside store supported his theft conviction).
Abron’s arguments to the contrary amount to requests that we reweigh the
evidence, which we decline to do. The evidence is sufficient to support the
conviction.
[7] The judgment of the trial court is affirmed.
Kirsch, J., and Bradford, J., concur.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 49A04-1709-CR-2318 | May 31, 2018 Page 4 of 4