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: STEVEN KNECHT Vonderheide & Knecht, P.C. Lafayette, Indiana

ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE: GREGORY F. ZOELLER Attorney General of Indiana ERIC P. BABBS Deputy Attorney General Indianapolis, Indiana

FILED
Feb 20 2012, 9:08 am
of the supreme court, court of appeals and tax court

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

CLERK

No. 08A05-1107-CR-336

APPEAL FROM THE CARROLL SUPERIOR COURT The Honorable Kurtis G. Fouts, Judge Cause No. 08D01-1004-FD-50

February 20, 2012 MEMORANDUM DECISION - NOT FOR PUBLICATION VAIDIK, Judge

Case Summary Matthew Weitzel appeals his conviction for Class D felony possession of methamphetamine. Weitzel contends there is insufficient evidence to support his

conviction because the State failed to prove that he had either actual or constructive possession of the methamphetamine. The State sufficiently proved the elements of We therefore affirm

possession of methamphetamine, including actual possession. Weitzel's conviction. Facts and Procedural History

The facts most favorable to the verdict are that on April 21, 2010, a naked man presumed to be Weitzel ran from the home of his father, Rick Weitzel ("Rick"), to the neighboring property of Sharon Stevenson. Stevenson's property had a detached garage and a separate shed. Stevenson saw Weitzel run across her property and go behind the shed. Charles Beck's property was on the other side of Stevenson's property, and he saw Weitzel beside Stevenson's garage. Next to the garage was a pile of clothing including a pair of khaki shorts with a wallet containing Weitzel's driver's license and a prescription bottle with Weitzel's name on it. Beck saw Weitzel rummaging through the pile of clothing and "pull[] something out of the clothes." Tr. p. 17. Weitzel then ran to the shed behind the garage and went inside the shed. Stevenson called Rick and told him that someone from his house was naked and running around her property. Rick came over and escorted his son, Weitzel, back to his house. Beck called the Carroll County Sheriff's Department to report the incident.

2

When the police arrived, an investigation revealed that there was a red metal canister in a burrow underneath but still visible from outside the shed. The canister contained a baggie with a whitish powdery substance that appeared to be methamphetamine and later field-tested positive for methamphetamine. Carroll County Sheriff's Department Deputies Spencer Kingery and Tony Liggett went to Rick's house and spoke with Weitzel. Weitzel's demeanor was described as jittery and he had red, watery eyes and a blank stare. Id. at 23. Deputy Liggett asked Weitzel when he had last used methamphetamine and Weitzel said it had been "at least four or five hours ago." Id. at 38. The State charged Weitzel with Count I: Class D felony possession of methamphetamine, Count II: Class C misdemeanor public nudity, and Count III: habitual substance offender status. Count II was dismissed, and Count I was tried before a jury on May 24, 2011. At the conclusion of the State's case, Weitzel moved for a directed verdict, that is, a judgment on the evidence, which was denied. Appellant's App. p. 26. The jury found Weitzel guilty of possession of methamphetamine. A bench trial was held on Count III, and Weitzel moved for a "directed verdict," which the trial court granted.1 A sentencing hearing was held on June 22, 2011, and the trial court sentenced Weitzel to three years in the Department of Correction. Id. at 42-43. Weitzel now appeals.

We note that a motion for judgment on the evidence under Trial Rule 50 is improper at a bench trial. Plesha v. Edmonds, 717 N.E.2d 981, 985 (Ind. Ct. App. 1999). Because the habitual offender count was tried before the court without a jury, Weitzel's motion was a motion for involuntary dismissal under Trial Rule 41. See id.

1

3

Discussion and Decision Our standard of review with regard to sufficiency claims is well settled. In reviewing a sufficiency of the evidence claim, this Court does not reweigh the evidence or judge the credibility of the witnesses. Bond v. State, 925 N.E.2d 773, 781 (Ind. Ct. App. 2010), reh'g denied, trans. denied. We consider only the evidence most favorable to the verdict and the reasonable inferences draw therefrom and affirm if the evidence and those inferences constitute substantial evidence of probative value to support the verdict. Id. Reversal is appropriate only when a reasonable trier of fact would not be able to form inferences as to each material element of the offense. Id. Class D felony possession of methamphetamine occurs when the defendant "without a valid prescription or order of a practitioner acting in the course of the practitioner's professional practice, knowingly or intentionally possesses

methamphetamine (pure or adulterated) . . . ." Ind. Code

Download Matthew Weitzel v. State of Indiana.pdf

Indiana Law