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. ATTORNEY FOR APPELLANT: CHASITY THOMPSON ADEWOPO Indianapolis, Indiana

FILED
Apr 22 2008, 9:53 am
of the supreme court, court of appeals and tax court

CLERK

ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE: STEVE CARTER Attorney General Of Indiana KARL M. SCHARNBERG Deputy Attorney General Indianapolis, Indiana

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA
KENNETH DODD, Appellant-Defendant, vs. STATE OF INDIANA, Appellee-Plaintiff. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )

No. 49A02-0710-CR-844

APPEAL FROM THE MARION SUPERIOR COURT The Honorable Mark D. Stoner, Judge The Honorable Jeffrey Marchal, Commissioner Cause No.49G06-0704-FC-70717

April 22, 2008

MEMORANDUM DECISION - NOT FOR PUBLICATION

ROBB, Judge

Case Summary and Issue Following a bench trial, Kenneth Dodd appeals his conviction of auto theft,1 a Class C felony. Dodd raises the sole issue of whether his conviction is supported by sufficient evidence. Concluding sufficient evidence exists, we affirm. Facts and Procedural History On April 24, 2007, Officer Marlin Sechrist, of the Indianapolis Metropolitan Police Department, observed a vehicle, driven by Dodd, traveling roughly sixty miles per hour in a thirty-five mile per hour zone. Officer Sechrist turned on his lights and siren and followed the vehicle. Dodd drove for roughly four blocks and pulled into a gas station. Officer Sechrist exited his vehicle and approached the vehicle driven by Dodd. Officer Sechrist observed a screwdriver on the seat next to Dodd and ordered Dodd to step out of the vehicle. After Dodd made an evasive maneuver, Officer Sechrist pinned Dodd up against the vehicle. At this time, another officer pulled into the parking lot, distracting Officer Sechrist. Dodd spun away and attempted to flee. The officers eventually subdued Dodd by use of a taser and arrested him. Officer Sechrist then returned to the vehicle and discovered that its steering column had been cracked open, exposing the ignition system. Officer Sechrist then ran the vehicle's VIN, identified the vehicle's owner, and determined that she had not given Dodd permission to operate the vehicle. Dodd was acquainted with the owner, as he had cut her grass and done other household tasks for her.

1

Dodd was also convicted of resisting arrest, but does not challenge this conviction.

2

On April 26, 2007, the State charged Dodd with auto theft, a Class D felony, and resisting arrest, a Class A misdemeanor. The same day, the State filed a second part to the auto theft charge, alleging that Dodd had a prior conviction of auto theft, thereby elevating the instant offense to a Class C felony. The trial court held a bench trial on August 2 and 22, 2007. The trial court found Dodd guilty of both charges and sentenced Dodd to eight years for auto theft and one year for resisting, with the sentences to run concurrently. Dodd now appeals his conviction of auto theft. Discussion and Decision I. Standard of Review When reviewing a claim of insufficient evidence, we will not reweigh evidence or judge witnesses' credibility. Grim v. State, 797 N.E.2d 825, 830 (Ind. Ct. App. 2003). We will consider only the evidence favorable to the judgment and the reasonable inferences drawn therefrom. Id. We will affirm a conviction if the lower court's finding is supported by substantial evidence of probative value. Id. Our supreme court has recently summarized our standard of review when assessing claims of insufficient evidence. 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 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 could 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 3

evidence is sufficient if an inference may reasonably be drawn from it to support the verdict. Drane v. State, 867 N.E.2d 144, 146-47 (Ind. 2007) (quotations and citations omitted) (emphasis in original). II. Sufficiency of the Evidence In order to convict a defendant of auto theft, the State must demonstrate that the defendant knowingly or intentionally exerted unauthorized control over the vehicle and had the intent to deprive the owner of the vehicle's value or use. 2 Ind. Code

Download 04220801mgr.pdf

Indiana Law