Brian Franklin v. State of Indiana (mem. dec.)

CourtIndiana Court of Appeals
DecidedOctober 10, 2018
Docket18A-CR-966
StatusPublished

This text of Brian Franklin v. State of Indiana (mem. dec.) (Brian Franklin v. State of Indiana (mem. dec.)) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Indiana Court of Appeals primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Brian Franklin v. State of Indiana (mem. dec.), (Ind. Ct. App. 2018).

Opinion

MEMORANDUM DECISION Pursuant to Ind. Appellate Rule 65(D), this Memorandum Decision shall not be FILED regarded as precedent or cited before any Oct 10 2018, 10:23 am court except for the purpose of establishing CLERK the defense of res judicata, collateral Indiana Supreme Court Court of Appeals estoppel, or the law of the case. and Tax Court

ATTORNEY FOR APPELLANT ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE Ellen M. O’Connor Curtis T. Hill, Jr. Indianapolis, Indiana Attorney General of Indiana

Chandra K. Hein Deputy Attorney General Indianapolis, Indiana

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA

Brian Franklin, October 10, 2018 Appellant-Defendant, Court of Appeals Case No. 18A-CR-966 v. Appeal from the Marion Superior Court State of Indiana, The Honorable Alicia A. Gooden, Appellee-Plaintiff Judge Trial Court Cause No. 49G21-1706-F4-23873

Altice, Judge.

Case Summary

Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 18A-CR-966 | October 10, 2018 Page 1 of 6 [1] Brian Franklin appeals his conviction for Level 4 felony unlawful possession of

a firearm by a serious violent felon. His sole argument is that the State failed to

present sufficient evidence that he possessed the firearm in question.

[2] We affirm.

Facts & Procedural History

[3] On the afternoon of June 26, 2017, Harry Watkins was in his Indianapolis

home with his wife, their two young children, and his brother Chris, who all

lived with Watkins. Franklin, who was Watkins’s nephew, came to the home

looking for a ride. He eventually stayed to visit and had dinner with the family.

After dinner, Franklin went onto the front porch to smoke a cigarette.

[4] Franklin had an active warrant for his arrest, and Sergeant Alex Nuetzel with

the Marion County Sheriff’s Office was tasked that evening with apprehending

Franklin. Sergeant Nuetzel was driving an unmarked black Dodge Charger

when he saw Franklin on Watkins’s front porch. Franklin noticed the vehicle

and immediately put his hand over his face to avoid being detected. Franklin

then quickly stood up, ran into the house, and slammed the front door, as

Sergeant Nuetzel and another officer yelled, “stop, it’s police, don’t run in the

house, don’t close the door.” Transcript at 37. Another officer secured the back

of the house, while Sergeant Nuetzel and others approached the front. After

abruptly entering the house, Franklin ran past his family members and toward

the back of the house.

Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 18A-CR-966 | October 10, 2018 Page 2 of 6 [5] Watkins went out the front door to speak with the police, as his wife took care

of the children and Chris stood inside the door holding onto the family’s very

large dog that would not calm down. Watkins identified Franklin as the man

who had just entered the house, and the officers indicated that they had a

warrant for Franklin’s arrest. Watkins immediately allowed the officers into the

home to search for Franklin. Additionally, Watkins accurately informed them

of the location of his own guns, all but one of which were stored in gun safes.

The other was a 9 mm pistol in a holster on the top of a tall dresser in his room,

out of reach of the children. Officers secured both exits, as Watkins’s wife and

children came out the front door and Chris went out the back door with the

dog. The officers then allowed Chris to bring the dog around to the front yard,

while the search inside the house continued.

[6] Officers entered the home and cleared the main two floors. Watkins’s guns

were located in the areas that he had described inside the home. Additionally,

a Springfield XD 40 semi-automatic pistol was discovered inside a clothes

dryer. The dryer was located just inside a utility room in the back of the house

and directly across from the entrance to the basement, which was about three to

five feet away. The door to the utility room generally remained open.

[7] A K-9 officer was brought in to search the basement when officers could not

locate Franklin elsewhere in the house. The K-9 discovered Franklin in a crawl

space in the basement, and Franklin was placed under arrest. He had small

amounts of Xanax and heroin in the pocket of his sweatpants. Franklin was a

serious violent felon (SVF) and not permitted to possess a firearm.

Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 18A-CR-966 | October 10, 2018 Page 3 of 6 [8] On June 28, 2017, the State charged Franklin with Level 4 felony possession of

a firearm by a SVF (Count I), Level 5 felony possession of a narcotic drug

(Count II), and Level 6 felony possession of a controlled substance (Count III).

Franklin waived his right to a jury trial, and the bench trial was held on

February 26, 2018. Franklin testified in his own defense and denied possessing

the pistol or placing it in the dryer on the way to the basement. The trial court

found Franklin guilty as charged. At the sentencing hearing on March 23,

2018, the trial court reduced Count II to a Level 6 felony and Count III to a

Class A misdemeanor, apparently due to double jeopardy concerns. The trial

court sentenced Franklin to twelve years executed in prison for Count I and one

year for each of Counts II and III. Counts II and III were ordered to be served

concurrent to each other and consecutive to Count I. Franklin now appeals,

challenging only his conviction for Count I.

Discussion & Decision

[9] Franklin contends that the State failed to present sufficient evidence that he

committed possession of a firearm by a SVF. He does not dispute that he is a

SVF, only that he possessed the gun found in the dryer at Watkins’s residence.

[10] When we consider a challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence, we neither

reweigh the evidence nor assess the credibility of the witnesses. Suggs v. State,

51 N.E.3d 1190, 1193 (Ind. 2016). Instead, we consider only the evidence and

reasonable inferences supporting the conviction. Id. We will affirm if there is

probative evidence from which a reasonable trier of fact could have found the

Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 18A-CR-966 | October 10, 2018 Page 4 of 6 defendant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. Id. The evidence need not

overcome every reasonable hypothesis of innocence. Craig v. State, 730 N.E.2d

1262, 1266 (Ind. 2000). It is enough that an inference may be drawn from the

circumstantial evidence that supports the conviction. Id.

[11] Franklin argues that no one saw him with a gun on the day in question and that

he was not seen placing anything in the dryer before fleeing to the basement.

He also notes that Chris exited the rear of the house with the dog after the

police arrived and was, therefore, near the dryer prior to the gun being

discovered.1 Additionally, Franklin queries why he would have only put the

gun in the dryer and not also the drugs in his pocket. All of these arguments

were made to the trial court.

[12] After hearing the evidence, including Franklin’s denial, the trial court found

him guilty of possession of a firearm by a SVF. Specifically, the trial court

noted that it was unpersuaded by the argument that the gun might have

belonged to Chris. The court continued, “I think there’s one reasonable

interpretation out of the evidence, and that is that Mr. Franklin did possess the

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Craig v. State
730 N.E.2d 1262 (Indiana Supreme Court, 2000)
Leonard L. Suggs v. State of Indiana
51 N.E.3d 1190 (Indiana Supreme Court, 2016)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
Brian Franklin v. State of Indiana (mem. dec.), Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/brian-franklin-v-state-of-indiana-mem-dec-indctapp-2018.