David Dobson v. State of Indiana (mem. dec.)

• Court: Indiana Court of Appeals
• Decided: September 30, 2019
• Docket: 19A-CR-522
• 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 Sep 30 2019, 11:26 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 Thomas P. Keller Curtis T. Hill, Jr. South Bend, Indiana Attorney General of Indiana

Lauren A. Jacobsen Deputy Attorney General Indianapolis, Indiana

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA

David Dobson, September 30, 2019 Appellant-Defendant, Court of Appeals Case No. 19A-CR-522 v. Appeal from the St. Joseph Superior Court State of Indiana, The Honorable Jane Woodward Appellee-Plaintiff. Miller, Judge Trial Court Cause No. 71D01-1805-CM-1728

Najam, Judge.

Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 19A-CR-522 | September 30, 2019 Page 1 of 4 Statement of the Case [1] David Dobson appeals his conviction, following a bench trial, for conversion,

as a Class A misdemeanor. He raises one issue on appeal, namely, whether the

State presented sufficient evidence to support his conviction.

[2] We affirm.

Facts and Procedural History [3] On April 5, 2018, Dobson entered a Meijer store. Once in the store, Dobson

put two air mattresses into an empty cart, walked to another section of the

store, removed one of the air mattresses, and walked to the service desk.

Dobson then attempted to return the remaining air mattress. Dobson presented

the employee at the service desk with a receipt, but the employee declined the

return because the UPC code on the receipt did not match the UPC code on the

air mattress. At that point, Dobson attempted to leave the store. He pushed the

cart with the air mattress past the last point of sale and through the first of two

sets of doors. However, while Dobson was in between the two sets of doors,

Tim Stephens, a loss prevention officer for Meijer, stopped Dobson.

[4] The State charged Dobson with one count of conversion, as a Class A

misdemeanor. At Dobson’s ensuing bench trial, the State presented as evidence

Stephens’ testimony. Stephens testified that, while he did not witness Dobson

enter the store, he observed Dobson place two air mattresses into an empty cart,

remove one, and proceed to the service desk to attempt to return the “same air

mattress that [he] saw [Dobson] pick up in the store that day.” Id. at 13.

Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 19A-CR-522 | September 30, 2019 Page 2 of 4 Indeed, Stephens testified that, after he first saw Dobson with the empty

shopping cart, he “[n]ever” lost sight of Dobson. Id. at 21. Stephens further

testified that he watched Stephens attempt to leave the store with the air

mattress. At the conclusion of the State’s evidence, the parties stipulated to the

admission of surveillance footage from Meijer’s entrance. The parties further

stipulated that the video footage did not show Dobson entering the store. The

trial court found Dobson guilty of conversion and sentenced him accordingly.

This appeal ensued.

Discussion and Decision [5] Dobson contends that the State failed to present sufficient evidence to support

his conviction. Our standard of review on a claim of insufficient evidence is

well settled:

For a sufficiency of the evidence claim, we look only at the probative evidence and reasonable inferences supporting the verdict. Drane v. State, 867 N.E.2d 144, 146 (Ind. 2007). We do not assess the credibility of witnesses or reweigh the evidence. Id. We will affirm the conviction unless no reasonable fact-finder could find the elements of the crime proven beyond a reasonable doubt. Id.

Love v. State, 73 N.E.3d 693, 696 (Ind. 2017).

[6] To prove that Dobson committed conversion, as a Class A misdemeanor, the

State was required to show that Dobson knowingly or intentionally exerted

unauthorized control over the property of another person. Ind. Code § 35-43-4-

3(a) (2019). On appeal, Dobson contends that the State presented insufficient Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 19A-CR-522 | September 30, 2019 Page 3 of 4 evidence to prove that he exerted unauthorized control over the air mattress.

Specifically, Dobson maintains that “the air mattress was his property” that he

was “attempting to return” and that the State failed to present sufficient

evidence to support his conviction because “there was no video evidence that

he came into the store empty-handed.” Appellant’s Br. at 8. We cannot agree.

[7] At Dobson’s trial, Stephens testified that he observed Dobson place the air

mattress into an empty cart, try to return the “same air mattress” and then

attempt to leave the store with the air mattress when he could not complete the

return. Tr. Vol. II at 13. He further testified that, even though he did not see

Dobson enter the store, he “[n]ever” lost sight of Dobson after he first observed

Dobson pushing an empty cart. Id. at 21. Based on that evidence, a reasonable

fact-finder could conclude that Dobson did not enter the store with the air

mattress and that the air mattress was not Dobson’s property. Dobson’s

argument on appeal is simply a request that we reweigh the evidence, which we

cannot do. We affirm Dobson’s conviction.

[8] Affirmed.

Bailey, J., and May, J., concur.

Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 19A-CR-522 | September 30, 2019 Page 4 of 4