Davon Crenshaw v. State of Indiana (mem. dec.)

• Court: Indiana Court of Appeals
• Decided: March 7, 2016
• Docket: 20A03-1504-CR-122
• Status: Published

Opinion

MEMORANDUM DECISION

ON REHEARING Pursuant to Ind. Appellate Rule 65(D), this Memorandum Decision shall not be Mar 07 2016, 8:15 am 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 ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE Scott H. Duerring Gregory F. Zoeller South Bend, Indiana Attorney General of Indiana

Larry D. Allen Deputy Attorney General Indianapolis, Indiana

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA

Davon Crenshaw, March 7. 2016 Appellant-Defendant, Court of Appeals Case No. 20A03-1504-CR-122 v. Appeal from the Elkhart Circuit Court State of Indiana, The Honorable Terry C. Appellee-Plaintiff Shewmaker, Judge Trial Court Cause No. 20C01-1311-FB-133

Bailey, Judge.

Court of Appeals of Indiana | Mem. Decision on Rehearing 20A03-1504-CR-122 | March 7, 2016 Page 1 of 2 [1] On rehearing after this Court affirmed his convictions for Burglary and

Conspiracy to Commit Burglary, Davon Crenshaw contends that he was

subjected to double jeopardy. According to Crenshaw, this Court misstated

relevant facts and there is a lack of independent evidence that he donned a

mask – the overt act alleged in furtherance of the conspiracy to commit

Burglary. In our opinion, we attributed to Matthew Allen the testimony that

Crenshaw was one of five masked men who actively participated in the burglary

of Cynthia Contreras’s home. This was in error. Antoine McDuffie’s guilty

plea hearing testimony (entered as an evidentiary exhibit at Crenshaw’s trial) is

the source of this evidence. Too, Contreras testified to her “absolute certainty”

that five men were in her home. (Tr. at 110, 113). She testified that “all the

individuals were wearing hoodies and covering half their face” with “some sort

of mask.” (Tr. at 99.) The jury’s conclusion that Crenshaw donned a mask, as

alleged, rests upon independent evidentiary facts. Subject to the foregoing

correction of the named witness, we affirm our original opinion.

Baker, J., and Mathias, J., concur.

Court of Appeals of Indiana | Mem. Decision on Rehearing 20A03-1504-CR-122 | March 7, 2016 Page 2 of 2