Damon Lamont Trice, Jr. v. State of Indiana (mem. dec.)

MEMORANDUM DECISION
Pursuant to Ind. Appellate Rule 65(D),
this Memorandum Decision shall not be FILED
regarded as precedent or cited before any Jan 14 2019, 9:04 am
court except for the purpose of establishing CLERK
the defense of res judicata, collateral Indiana Supreme Court
Court of Appeals
and Tax Court
estoppel, or the law of the case.
ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLANT ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE
Kurt A. Young Curtis T. Hill, Jr.
Nashville, Indiana Attorney General of Indiana
Valerie Kent Boots Benjamin J. Shoptaw
Indianapolis, Indiana Deputy Attorney General
Indianapolis, Indiana
IN THE
COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA
Damon Lamont Trice, Jr., January 14, 2019
Appellant-Defendant, Court of Appeals Case No.
18A-CR-1478
v. Appeal from the Marion Superior
Court
State of Indiana, The Honorable Jane S. Craney,
Appellee-Plaintiff. Senior Judge
Trial Court Cause No.
49G21-1702-F5-6082
Pyle, Judge.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 18A-CR-1478| January 14, 2019 Page 1 of 6
Statement of the Case
[1] Damon Lamont Trice, Jr. (“Trice”) appeals his conviction, following a bench
trial, for Level 5 felony carrying a handgun without a license.1 Trice argues that
there was insufficient evidence to support his conviction. Because Trice’s
argument is nothing more than a request to reweigh the trial court’s
determination of witness credibility, we affirm his conviction.
[2] We affirm.
Issue
Whether sufficient evidence supports Trice’s conviction.
Facts
[3] On February 11, 2017, Trice was a passenger in a car driven by his girlfriend,
Sharese Davidson (“Davidson”). When Davidson failed to use her turn signal,
Officer Roberto Sanchez (“Officer Sanchez”) and Officer Ivan Ivanov (“Officer
Ivanov”) of the Indianapolis Metropolitan Police Department (“IMPD”)
initiated a traffic stop. When the officers walked up to the car, they both
smelled the odor of raw marijuana. The officers arrested Trice and Davidson.
Officer Sanchez searched the car and discovered 3.88 grams of marijuana under
1
IND. CODE § 35-47-2-1. Trice was also convicted of Class B misdemeanor possession of marijuana, but he
does not challenge this conviction on appeal.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 18A-CR-1478| January 14, 2019 Page 2 of 6
the passenger seat cushion where Trice had been sitting. The officer also found
a handgun in a front compartment between the driver and passenger seats.
[4] The officers read Trice and Davidson their Miranda rights and questioned them
about the drugs and gun. Initially, Trice and Davidson denied knowing about
the gun or the marijuana. Trice then told the officers that he had sold the gun
to Davidson’s uncle. When the officers asked him for the uncle’s name, he
stated that he did not know his name. Later during questioning, Trice began to
cry and admitted that the gun and the marijuana belonged to him. Trice did
not have a license to carry the handgun.
[5] The State charged Trice with: Count 1, carrying a handgun without a license,
which was elevated to a Level 5 felony based on Trice having a previous felony
conviction within the last fifteen years;2 and Count 2, Class B misdemeanor
possession of marijuana. On May 31, 2018, the trial court held a bench trial.
The State presented testimony from the two officers, who testified to the facts
above.
[6] Trice testified on his own behalf, and he admitted that the marijuana belonged
to him. He also acknowledged that, during the traffic stop, he had told the
officers that the gun belonged to him. He then testified that the gun did not
belong to him and stated that he had lied to the police by telling them that he
owned the gun. Trice admitted that he had claimed ownership of the gun at the
2
The State alleged that Trice had a 2010 conviction for Class D felony battery.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 18A-CR-1478| January 14, 2019 Page 3 of 6
traffic stop to protect Davidson from being arrested for possession of the gun.
Trice then testified that a previous girlfriend, Betty Lambert (“Lambert”), had
sold the gun to Davidson’s uncle. Trice also presented testimony from
Davidson, who confirmed that, at the traffic stop, she had told the officers that
the gun was not hers. Davidson, then testified that the gun was actually hers.
She also testified that she had purchased the gun from Lambert.
[7] During closing arguments, Trice’s counsel stated that Trice and Davidson had
lied to the police during the traffic stop but asserted that the trial court should
find their trial testimony to be credible because they were under oath. The trial
court rejected Trice’s argument and found Trice guilty as charged.3 The trial
court imposed a five (5) year sentence for Trice’s Level 5 felony carrying a
handgun without a license conviction and a concurrent sentence of 180 days for
his Class B misdemeanor possession of marijuana conviction. Trice now
appeals.
Decision
[8] Trice argues that the evidence was insufficient to support his conviction for
carrying a handgun without a license.
When reviewing the sufficiency of the evidence to support a
conviction, appellate courts must consider only the probative
evidence and reasonable inferences supporting the verdict. It is
the fact-finder’s role, not that of appellate courts, to assess
3
The parties stipulated that Trice had a prior conviction for a felony within fifteen years.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 18A-CR-1478| January 14, 2019 Page 4 of 6
witness credibility and weigh the evidence to determine whether
it is sufficient to support a conviction. To preserve this structure,
when appellate courts are confronted with conflicting evidence,
they must consider it most favorably to the trial court’s ruling.
Appellate courts affirm the conviction unless no reasonable fact-
finder would find the elements of the crime proven beyond a
reasonable doubt. It is therefore not necessary that the evidence
overcome every reasonable hypothesis of innocence. The
evidence is sufficient if an inference may reasonably be drawn
from it to support the verdict.
[9] Drane v. State, 867 N.E.2d 144, 146-47 (Ind. 2007) (internal quotation marks
and citations omitted) (emphasis in original). Additionally, our Indiana
Supreme Court has explained that “when determining whether the elements of
an offense are proven beyond a reasonable doubt, a fact-finder may consider
both the evidence and the resulting reasonable inferences.” Thang v. State,
10 N.E.3d 1256, 1260 (Ind. 2014) (emphasis in original).
[10] To convict Trice of carrying a handgun without a license as charged, the State
was required to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that he knowingly carried a
handgun in a vehicle or on his person without being licensed to carry a gun and
that he had been convicted of a felony within fifteen years before the date of his
offense. See IND. CODE § 35-47-2-1.
[11] Trice does not dispute any specific element of his offense nor does he argue that
the State failed to present evidence supporting these elements. Instead, he
challenges the trial court’s determination of witness credibility. Trice contends
that the trial court erred by giving “greater weight” to his statements made to
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 18A-CR-1478| January 14, 2019 Page 5 of 6
the police during the traffic stop than it gave to his trial testimony that was
under oath. (Trice’s Br. 9). The trial court rejected this argument at trial as do
we in this appeal. The trial court made its witness credibility determination,
and we will not reassess it. The evidence presented at trial and the inferences
drawn therefrom were sufficient for the trial court, as trier of fact, to conclude
that Trice carried a handgun without a license. Accordingly, we affirm his
conviction.
[12] Affirmed.
Najam, J., and Altice, J., concur.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 18A-CR-1478| January 14, 2019 Page 6 of 6