Preview:

Pursuant to Ind.Appellate Rule 65(D), 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.

FILED
Feb 17 2011, 9:26 am
of the supreme court, court of appeals and tax court

CLERK

ATTORNEY FOR APPELLANT: MARTHA WARREN-ROSENFELD Lee Cossell Kuehn & Love, LLP Indianapolis, Indiana

ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE: GREGORY F. ZOELLER Attorney General of Indiana WADE JAMES HORNBACHER Deputy Attorney General Indianapolis, Indiana

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA
JOSEPH LEVETTE ROBINSON, III, Appellant-Defendant, vs. STATE OF INDIANA, Appellee-Plaintiff. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )

No. 79A02-1002-CR-142

APPEAL FROM THE TIPPECANOE SUPERIOR COURT The Honorable Thomas H. Busch, Judge Cause No. 79D02-0902-FB-4

February 17, 2011

MEMORANDUM DECISION - NOT FOR PUBLICATION

NAJAM, Judge

STATEMENT OF THE CASE Joseph Levette Robinson, III, appeals his conviction for Dealing in Cocaine, as a Class B felony, and his adjudication as an habitual substance offender following a jury trial. He presents two issues for our review: 1. Whether the State presented sufficient evidence to support his conviction. Whether his sentence is inappropriate in light of the nature of the offense and his character.

2.

We affirm. FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY On February 2, 2009, Detective Jason Walters of the Lafayette Police Department, working undercover, telephoned Robinson on Robinson's cell phone to arrange a purchase of crack cocaine. Robinson instructed Detective Walters to meet him fifteen minutes later at a designated location. Detective Walters recorded the serial numbers of the bills he would use to buy the crack cocaine and drove to the location to meet Robinson, who arrived in a tan SUV. Detective Walters found Ashley Wright sitting in the driver's seat of the SUV, and Robinson was sitting in the front-passenger seat. Detective Walters handed Wright the money, and Wright handed the money to Robinson. Robinson then handed Wright a plastic baggie containing what was later determined to be crack cocaine, and Wright handed the baggie to Detective Walters. After Wright and Robinson drove away, police officers stopped their SUV and arrested Robinson, who had the money Detective Walters had used to buy the crack cocaine on his person. The State charged Robinson with dealing in cocaine, as a Class B
2

felony; possession of cocaine, as a Class D felony; and maintaining a common nuisance, a Class D felony. A jury found him guilty of the first two counts, but acquitted him of maintaining a common nuisance. A jury also adjudicated Robinson an habitual substance offender. The trial court entered judgment of conviction only for dealing in cocaine, as a Class B felony, and imposed a sentence of eleven years, with four years suspended, enhanced by five years for being an habitual substance offender, for an aggregate term of sixteen years, with four years suspended.1 This appeal ensued. DISCUSSION AND DECISION Issue One: Sufficiency of the Evidence Robinson contends that the State presented insufficient evidence to support his conviction.2 When the sufficiency of the evidence to support a conviction is challenged, we neither reweigh the evidence nor judge the credibility of the witnesses, and we affirm if there is substantial evidence of probative value supporting each element of the crime from which a reasonable trier of fact could have found the defendant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. Wright v. State, 828 N.E.2d 904, 905-06 (Ind. 2005). It is the job of the fact-finder to determine whether the evidence in a particular case sufficiently proves each element of an offense, and we consider conflicting evidence most favorably to the trial court's ruling. Id. at 906.

The trial court's oral sentencing statement refers to the duration of the suspended sentence as four years, but the abstract of judgment states that the suspended sentence is five years. Robinson does not raise as an issue on appeal the apparent inconsistency in the two sentencing statements, and we do not think this discrepancy bears on our analysis of Robinson's Appellate Rule 7(B) argument. For purposes of this appeal, we will consider Robinson's sentence as though only four years were suspended.
1

Robinson challenges the jury's guilty verdict on the possession of cocaine charge. Because the trial court did not enter judgment of conviction on that count, there is no conviction to appeal, and we do not address Robinson's argument here.
2

3

To prove dealing in cocaine, as a Class B felony, the State was required to prove that Robinson knowingly or intentionally delivered cocaine to Detective Walters. See Ind. Code

Download Joseph L. Robinson, III v. State of Indiana.pdf

Indiana Law