Darryl Abron v. State of Indiana (mem. dec.)

• Court: Indiana Court of Appeals
• Decided: May 31, 2018
• Docket: 49A04-1709-CR-2318
• Status: Published

Opinion

MEMORANDUM DECISION Pursuant to Ind. Appellate Rule 65(D), FILED this Memorandum Decision shall not be regarded as precedent or cited before any May 31 2018, 10:57 am

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 Ellen M. O’Connor Curtis T. Hill, Jr. Marion County Public Defender Agency Attorney General of Indiana Indianapolis, Indiana Michael Gene Worden Deputy Attorney General Indianapolis, Indiana

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA

Darryl Abron, May 31, 2018 Appellant-Defendant, Court of Appeals Case No. 49A04-1709-CR-2318 v. Appeal from the Marion Superior Court State of Indiana, The Honorable Ronnie Huerta, Appellee-Plaintiff Commissioner Trial Court Cause No. 49G09-1704-F6-14350

Baker, Judge.

Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 49A04-1709-CR-2318 | May 31, 2018 Page 1 of 4 [1] Darryl Abron appeals his conviction for Level 6 Felony Theft,1 arguing that the

evidence is insufficient to support his conviction. Finding the evidence

sufficient, we affirm.

[2] On April 18, 2017, Bradley Bastin, an employee at an Indianapolis Kroger

store, observed Abron shopping in the cold pack deli case. Bastin saw Abron

reach into the deli case and pull out a couple of packages of chicken. Abron

turned around, lifted his shirt, and placed the chicken packages in the back of

his pants. Abron walked away with the chicken packages concealed in his

clothing and proceeded to the front of the store. Bastin followed him, and

when Abron reached the front of the store, Bastin confronted him. At that

point, Abron was over thirty feet away from an open register and had made no

attempt to pay for the merchandise. Abron became irate, eventually knocking a

loss prevention officer to the floor. Store personnel called police, who arrested

Abron.

[3] On April 18, 2017, the State charged Abron with Class A misdemeanor theft,

Class A misdemeanor battery resulting in bodily injury, and Class B

misdemeanor battery; the State also filed a charging information enhancing the

theft charge to a Level 6 felony based on Abron’s prior criminal history.

Abron’s jury trial took place on June 21, 2017. The jury found Abron guilty of

theft and not guilty of the remaining charges. The jury also found that the State

1 Ind. Code § 35-43-4-2(a).

Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 49A04-1709-CR-2318 | May 31, 2018 Page 2 of 4 proved Abron’s criminal history beyond a reasonable doubt, enhancing the theft

conviction to a Level 6 felony. On July 19, 2017, the trial court sentenced

Abron to 730 days imprisonment. Abron now appeals.

[4] Abron’s sole argument on appeal is that the evidence is insufficient to support

his conviction. When reviewing the sufficiency of the evidence to support a

conviction, we must consider only the probative evidence and reasonable

inferences supporting the conviction and will neither assess witness credibility

nor reweigh the evidence. Drane v. State, 867 N.E.2d 144, 146 (Ind. 2007). We

will affirm unless no reasonable factfinder could find the elements of the crime

proved beyond a reasonable doubt. Id. To convict Abron of theft, the State was

required to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that he knowingly or intentionally

exerted unauthorized control over the property of another person with the

intent to deprive the other person of any part of its value or use. I.C. § 35-43-4-

2(a).2

[5] Abron challenges only whether the evidence supports a conclusion that he had

the intent to deprive the Kroger store of the chicken. A defendant’s intent may

be based solely on circumstantial evidence. E.g., Purvis v. State, 87 N.E.3d 1119,

1124 (Ind. Ct. App. 2017). A defendant’s intent may be inferred from his

conduct and the natural and usual sequence to which such conduct logically

2 Abron does not challenge the evidence that enhanced the theft conviction to a Level 6 felony.

Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 49A04-1709-CR-2318 | May 31, 2018 Page 3 of 4 and reasonably points. E.g., Long v. State, 867 N.E.2d 606, 614 (Ind. Ct. App.

2007).

[6] Here, Bastin observed Abron remove two packages of chicken from the deli

case, lift his shirt, and place them in the back of his pants. Abron then walked

to the store exit with the merchandise still concealed under his clothing. When

confronted, he had passed all points for payment and had made no attempt to

pay. A reasonable factfinder could infer from this evidence that Abron

intended to remove the chicken from the store without paying for it. See

Chambliss v. State, 746 N.E.2d 73, 78 (Ind. 2001) (defendant’s concealment of

lunch meat under his coat while inside store supported his theft conviction).

Abron’s arguments to the contrary amount to requests that we reweigh the

evidence, which we decline to do. The evidence is sufficient to support the

conviction.

[7] The judgment of the trial court is affirmed.

Kirsch, J., and Bradford, J., concur.

Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 49A04-1709-CR-2318 | May 31, 2018 Page 4 of 4