Luvelle Deshawn Neal v. State of Indiana (mem. dec.)

MEMORANDUM DECISION
Pursuant to Ind. Appellate Rule 65(D), FILED
this Memorandum Decision shall not be
Apr 06 2020, 10:26 am
regarded as precedent or cited before any
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
Mark S. Lenyo Curtis T. Hill, Jr.
South Bend, Indiana Attorney General of Indiana
Myriam Serrano-Colon
Deputy Attorney General
Indianapolis, Indiana
IN THE
COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA
Luvelle Deshawn Neal, April 6, 2020
Appellant-Defendant, Court of Appeals Case No.
19A-CR-1698
v. Appeal from the St. Joseph
Superior Court
State of Indiana, The Honorable Elizabeth C.
Appellee-Plaintiff. Hurley, Judge
Trial Court Cause No.
71D08-1803-F1-5
Mathias, Judge.
[1] Following a jury trial, Luvelle Deshawn Neal (“Neal”) was convicted of
attempted murder as a Level 1 felony and dealing in cocaine as a Level 3
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 19A-CR-1698 | April 6, 2020 Page 1 of 9
felony. Neal appeals and contends that there was insufficient evidence to
sustain his convictions.
[2] We affirm.
Facts and Procedural History
[3] On March 22, 2018, Neal received a call from Darrell Burger (“Darrell”), to
whom he had sold cocaine and heroin in the past. Darrell’s brother Gage
Burger (“Gage”) wanted to buy drugs from Neal. The men agreed to meet that
evening in the parking lot of a downtown South Bend bar, Frank’s Place. The
Burger brothers arrived in a Mercury Grand Marquis that was borrowed from a
neighbor. Darrell was driving, and Gage was the front seat passenger. Gage was
armed with a Glock firearm and a debit card, but no cash. He also brought five
sets of digital scales commonly used to weigh controlled substances during drug
transactions.
[4] Shortly after 6 p.m., Neal arrived with a man named Larry Harris (“Harris”).
Neal exited their vehicle and got into the backseat of the Grand Marquis,
behind Gage. He immediately grabbed Gage by the back of his neck and
pointed a gun at the back of Gage’s head; Darrell demanded that Neal get out
of the car and started the engine. Neal briefly pointed the gun at Darrell and
then struck Gage on the head with the butt of the gun. Meanwhile, Gage had
reached for his own weapon and put it under his leg.
[5] Gage opened the car door and leapt from the vehicle; Gage and Neal
exchanged fire, and Neal followed Gage out of the vehicle. Darrell, still in the
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 19A-CR-1698 | April 6, 2020 Page 2 of 9
driver’s seat, heard multiple gunshots but did not know whether his brother or
Neal fired first. Darrell pulled out of the parking lot, circled the block, and came
back to find Gage lying on the ground and bleeding from his neck. Darrell
drove away. Harris, who had been waiting in his vehicle, heard the gunshots
and saw the Grand Marquis drive away. Harris saw Neal holding his chest and
waving him off; Harris pulled out of the parking lot and circled the area until he
found Neal, picked him up, and took him to a hospital.
[6] Law enforcement quickly arrived at the scene. South Bend Police Department
Officer Russell Lupica found Gage lying motionless and bleeding in the parking
lot. He recovered a gun on the ground near Gage’s knee and performed CPR
until medics arrived to transport Gage to a hospital. Detective Chris
Kronewitter was assigned to investigate the shooting; he went to Memorial
Hospital, where both Neal and Gage were being treated for their injuries.
Detective Kronewitter spoke to Neal at the hospital that night and again the
next day, March 23. Neal admitted that he was at Frank’s Place to sell drugs to
Gage and that he had fired about five shots at Gage. He described hiding
cocaine and his handgun under a trashcan in the parking lot before fleeing.
Neal also admitted that he had been dealing marijuana and cocaine for two and
a half years and had been carrying a gun for two years. Gage’s injuries
prevented Detective Kronewitter from interviewing him at the time.
[7] Law enforcement recovered Neal’s gun and various shell casings and bullet
fragments from the Frank’s Place parking lot. The shell casings were all .40
caliber but were of two different manufacturer brands. A crime laboratory
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 19A-CR-1698 | April 6, 2020 Page 3 of 9
firearm examiner determined that four shell casings were fired from Gage’s gun
and seven shell casings were fired from Neal’s gun. Law enforcement also
recovered video surveillance of the shooting from Frank’s Place. Darrell was
tracked to Mishawaka, where his fiancée hid the wallet, cell phone, and debit
card that Gage left behind in the Grand Marquis in an outdoor grill. Darrell
returned the vehicle to his neighbor; its front driver’s side window and back
passenger’s side window were shattered, and there were several bullet holes
inside the vehicle. On Darrell’s suggestion, the neighbor reported the car stolen,
but later admitted that the report was false and she had allowed Darrell to
borrow the car.
[8] On March 26, 2018, Neal was charged with Level 1 felony attempted murder,
Level 3 felony aggravated battery, Level 3 felony attempted armed robbery, and
Level 5 felony dealing in cocaine. Following a jury trial, on May 15, 2019, Neal
was found guilty of attempted murder, aggravated battery and dealing in
cocaine, and not guilty of attempted armed robbery. Because the same facts and
circumstances supported both the attempted murder and aggravated battery
offenses, the trial court entered judgment of conviction only for attempted
murder and dealing in cocaine. A sentencing hearing was held on June 26,
2019; Neal was sentenced to twenty-five years in the Department of Correction
for attempted murder and three years for dealing in cocaine, to be served
concurrently. This appeal followed.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 19A-CR-1698 | April 6, 2020 Page 4 of 9
Discussion and Decision
[9] On appeal, Neal contends that the evidence is insufficient to support his
convictions for dealing in cocaine and attempted murder. When reviewing
challenges to the sufficiency of evidence, we do not reweigh the evidence nor do
we reassess the credibility of witnesses. Jones v. State, 783 N.E.2d 1132, 1139
(Ind. 2003). We look only to the probative evidence supporting the judgment
and to the reasonable inferences that may be drawn from the evidence in
determining whether a reasonable trier of fact could conclude that the
defendant was guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. Id. A verdict may be sustained
based on circumstantial evidence alone if that circumstantial evidence supports
a reasonable inference of guilt. Maul v. State, 731 N.E.2d 438, 439 (Ind. 2000).
Reversal is only appropriate when no reasonable trier of fact could find the
elements of the crime proven beyond a reasonable doubt. Drane v. State, 867
N.E.2d 144, 146 (Ind. 2007).
I. Dealing in Cocaine
[10] Neal argues that the evidence used to support his conviction for dealing in
cocaine was insufficient because the State did not present evidence that he
actually possessed cocaine. “A person who knowingly or intentionally
possesses, with intent to deliver cocaine . . . commits dealing in cocaine . . . a
Level 5 felony.” Ind. Code § 35-48-4-1. In order to convict Neal of dealing in
cocaine, the State was required to prove that Neal knowingly possessed cocaine
with the intent to deliver the cocaine. See id.Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 19A-CR-1698 | April 6, 2020 Page 5 of 9
[11] Neal is correct that the State did not offer direct, physical evidence in the form
of the cocaine that Neal intended to sell to Gage; however, circumstantial
evidence of possession with intent to deliver is sufficient to support the
conviction. See Stokes v. State, 801 N.E.2d 1263, 1272 (Ind. Ct. App. 2004)
(affirming conviction for dealing in cocaine based on evidence from which jury
could reasonably infer defendant possessed cocaine), trans. denied. On appellate
review, such evidence does not have to overcome every reasonable hypothesis
of innocence, but need only generate a reasonable inference of guilt. Mills v.
State, 512 N.E.2d 846, 848 (Ind. 1987).
[12] The State presented evidence that Neal met the Burger brothers after Darrell
called Neal and relayed Gage’s request to purchase drugs. Darrell called Neal
because Neal had sold him cocaine and heroin in the past. The nature of their
relationship was not disputed by defense counsel at trial. Darrell testified that
Gage wanted to purchase heroin for $1400. Detective Kronewitter, who
interviewed Neal in the hospital immediately after the shooting, testified that
Neal explained he had been “going to [sell] twenty grams of cocaine for $1300”
and had been robbed. Tr. Vol. IV, p. 32. Neal also told Detective Kronewitter
where his gun was located.
[13] Neal admitted that his reason for meeting the Burger brothers was to sell
cocaine and that cocaine was in his pocket at the time of their meeting. Ex.
Vol., State’s Ex. 223. Neal also admitted to abandoning the drugs under a
trashcan with his gun before fleeing the scene. Indeed, based on Neal’s
information, law enforcement recovered the gun that he hid under a trashcan,
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 19A-CR-1698 | April 6, 2020 Page 6 of 9
but they did not discover cocaine or other drugs under the trashcan. Neal
argues that the evidence was insufficient to support his conviction because
“[no]one ever saw any cocaine.” Appellant’s Br. at 18. The statutory elements
of the offense however, do not include physical recovery of the controlled
substance in question; that is to say, nothing precludes conviction for dealing in
cocaine if the evidence presented—including circumstantial evidence—and
reasonable inferences that can be drawn from the evidence are sufficient to find
a defendant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. Here, the jury could reasonably
infer, based on Neal’s own admissions and on the circumstantial evidence
presented, that he knowingly and intentionally possessed cocaine with the
intent to deliver and sell it to Gage for $1300. Accordingly, we find that this
evidence was sufficient to support the jury’s determination that Neal possessed
cocaine with the intent to deliver.
II. Attempted Murder
[14] Neal also argues that the evidence used to support his conviction for attempted
murder was insufficient because the State did not present evidence that he had
the requisite specific intent to kill. To convict Neal of attempted murder, the
State was required to prove that Neal “acted with the specific intent to kill and
that he engaged in conduct constituting a substantial step toward the killing of”
Gage. See Gall v. State, 811 N.E.2d 969, 975 (Ind. Ct. App. 2004); I.C. § 35-42-1-
1; I.C. § 35-41-5-1. Where typically, the culpability requirement for the attempt
of a crime is that of the specific crime attempted, for convictions of attempted
murder our supreme court “has emphasized the importance of requiring specific
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 19A-CR-1698 | April 6, 2020 Page 7 of 9
intent to kill . . . despite [] the culpability requirement for murder includ[ing] the
lesser standard of ‘knowingly.’” Perez v. State, 872 N.E.2d 208, 211 (Ind. Ct.
App. 2007), trans. denied.
[15] Specific intent to kill “may be inferred from the intentional use of a deadly
weapon in a manner likely to cause death.” Reese v. State, 939 N.E.2d 695, 702
(Ind. Ct. App. 2011), trans. denied. “Discharging a weapon in the direction of a
victim is substantial evidence from which a jury can infer intent to kill.” Id.[16] Here, Neal admitted to Detective Kronewitter that he was armed with a gun
when he arrived at Frank’s Place, and a gun matching his description was later
recovered from the scene. Darrell’s testimony was that Neal pointed a weapon
at Gage’s head immediately upon entering Darrell’s vehicle, and then Neal
struck Gage on the head with the butt of the gun. Neal admitted to Detective
Kronewitter that he fired his weapon several times; ballistic evidence showed
that Neal fired at least seven times based on the recovery of seven shell casings
that matched the gun found at the scene. Evidence was also presented that
Gage—who was unable to testify at trial due to the severity of his injuries—
received an injury to his head, above his eye, with characteristics of a bullet
wound. Gage was also shot above his waistline on the right side of his body.
[17] The evidence presented, including Neal’s own admissions, established that Neal
“deliberately used a deadly weapon in a manner likely to cause death or serious
injury.” See Bethel v. State, 730 N.E.2d 1242, 1245 (Ind. 2000). He deliberately
pointed and fired his gun at Gage in a manner likely to cause injury or death to
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 19A-CR-1698 | April 6, 2020 Page 8 of 9
Gage. Thus, the evidence presented was sufficient for a jury to reasonably
conclude Neal acted with the specific intent to kill Gage and that shooting Gage
constituted a substantial step toward doing so.
Conclusion
[18] The evidence presented was sufficient to sustain Neal’s convictions for dealing
in cocaine and attempted murder. Because the jury could reasonably find the
elements of each offense proved beyond a reasonable doubt, we affirm the
judgment of the trial court.
[19] Affirmed.
Kirsch, J., and Bailey, J., concur.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 19A-CR-1698 | April 6, 2020 Page 9 of 9