Dennis Bretzlaff v. State of Indiana (mem. dec.)

• Court: Indiana Court of Appeals
• Decided: March 16, 2015
• Docket: 49A02-1407-CR-506
• Status: Published

Opinion

MEMORANDUM DECISION Mar 16 2015, 9:58 am 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 ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE Suzy St. John Gregory F. Zoeller Marion County Public Defender Attorney General of Indiana Appellate Division Lyubov Gore Indianapolis, Indiana Deputy Attorney General Indianapolis, Indiana

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA

Dennis Bretzlaff, March 16, 2015

Appellant-Defendant, Court of Appeals Case No. 49A02-1407-CR-506 v. Appeal from the Marion Superior Court The Honorable Amy M. Jones, State of Indiana, Judge Appellee-Plaintiff Case No. 49F08-1402-CM-7848

Crone, Judge.

Case Summary [1] The trial court found Dennis Bretzlaff guilty of class A misdemeanor possession

of a cellular telephone while incarcerated in a penal facility. Bretzlaff

Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 49A02-1407-CR-506| March 16, 2015 Page 1 of 4 challenges the admission of his confession under the corpus delicti rule.

Finding no error, we affirm.

Facts and Procedural History [2] The facts most favorable to the trial court’s judgment are that Security Officer

Chris Myers worked at the Duvall Residential Center, a community corrections

work release facility. On February 17, 2014, Security Officer Charles Holder

brought a cell phone and a makeshift battery charger to Officer Myers. Officer

Myers retained possession of these items and contacted Bretzlaff, who was

brought to the security office. Officer Myers Mirandized Bretzlaff and recorded

him on video. Bretzlaff acknowledged his rights and admitted to having a cell

phone in the work release facility. He said that he had forgotten that he had it

but once he remembered, he let some other inmates make telephone calls.

[3] The State charged Bretzlaff with class A misdemeanor possession of a cellular

phone while incarcerated. Following a bench trial, the trial court found him

guilty as charged.

Discussion and Decision [4] To convict Bretzlaff of a class A misdemeanor for possession of a cellular phone

while incarcerated, the State was required to prove beyond a reasonable doubt

that he “knowingly or intentionally possesse[d] a cellular telephone or other

wireless or cellular communications device while incarcerated in a penal

facility.” Ind. Code § 35-44.1-3-8. Bretzlaff argues that there is no evidence

Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 49A02-1407-CR-506| March 16, 2015 Page 2 of 4 other than his confession that supports his conviction and that the State failed

to establish corpus delicti.

[5] Under the corpus delicti doctrine, “a crime may not be proven based solely on a

confession.” Malinski v. State, 794 N.E.2d 1071, 1086 (Ind. 2003). A confession

may be introduced at trial only if the State produces corroborating or

independent evidence of the corpus delicti. Sweeney v. State, 704 N.E.2d 86, 105

(Ind. 1998). “[T]his evidence need not prove that a crime was committed

beyond a reasonable doubt, but merely provide an inference that a crime was

committed.” Workman v. State, 716 N.E.2d 445, 447-48 (Ind. 1999) (citation and

quotation marks omitted). The totality of the independent evidence throughout

the course of the trial determines whether such inference has been established.

Hawkins v. State, 884 N.E.2d 939, 945 (Ind. Ct. App. 2008), trans. denied. “[T]he

independent evidence supporting the corpus delicti need not preclude every

possible explanation of the circumstances.” Stevens v. State, 691 N.E.2d 412,

425 (Ind. 1997) (citation and quotation marks omitted), cert. denied.

[6] Here, independent evidence existed to support the admission of Bretzlaff’s

confession.1 At trial, Officer Myers testified that State’s Exhibit One was the

Samsung cell phone and makeshift battery charger obtained from Bretzlaff. Tr.

at 8. This testimony, to which Bretzlaff did not object, was independent

evidence that allowed an inference to be established that Bretzlaff possessed the

1 Consequently, Bretzlaff’s reliance on Moore v. State, 497 N.E.2d 242 (Ind. Ct. App. 1986), is misplaced.

Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 49A02-1407-CR-506| March 16, 2015 Page 3 of 4 cell phone while incarcerated. The corpus delicti rule was therefore satisfied,

and we affirm Bretzlaff’s conviction.

[7] Affirmed.

Friedlander, J., and Kirsch, J., concur.

Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 49A02-1407-CR-506| March 16, 2015 Page 4 of 4