Devell L. Coleman v. State of Indiana (mem. dec.)

• Court: Indiana Court of Appeals
• Decided: October 5, 2016
• Docket: 49A02-1601-CR-183
• Status: Published

Opinion

MEMORANDUM DECISION FILED Oct 05 2016, 8:33 am Pursuant to Ind. Appellate Rule 65(D), this Memorandum Decision shall not be regarded as CLERK Indiana Supreme Court precedent or cited before any court except for the Court of Appeals and Tax Court purpose of establishing the defense of res judicata, collateral estoppel, or the law of the case.

ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLANT ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE Ruth A. Johnson Gregory F. Zoeller Marion County Public Defender Attorney General of Indiana Indianapolis, Indiana Lyubov Gore Deputy Attorney General Timothy J. Burns Indianapolis, Indiana Indianapolis, Indiana Christina D. Pace Deputy Attorney General Indianapolis, Indiana

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA

Devell L. Coleman, October 5, 2016

Appellant-Defendant, Court of Appeals Case No. 49A02-1601-CR-183 v. Appeal from the Marion Superior Court. The Honorable Allan Reid, State of Indiana, Commissioner. Appellee-Plaintiff. Cause No. 49G10-1507-CM-023468

Shepard, Senior Judge

[1] A security guard for an apartment complex called the police and reported that

Devell Coleman was trespassing on the property. Coleman was charged, tried,

Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 49A02-1601-CR-183 | October 5, 2016 Page 1 of 6 and convicted of criminal trespass as a Class A misdemeanor. He appeals,

arguing insufficient evidence. We affirm.

Facts and Procedural History [2] CSI Protective Services, LLC (“CSI”) is a private company that provides

security services to apartment complexes in Indianapolis. Chad Butts is the

owner and an employee of the company. In May of 2013, the company that

managed the Strawbridge Green Apartments contracted with CSI to provide

security services for the complex. Butts served as the guard.

[3] The complex had an anti-loitering policy. On June 27, 2015, Butts saw a group

of people, including Coleman, loitering on the property. When Butts told the

group to disperse, Coleman became upset and began to “voice his opinion.”

Appellant’s Br. p. 6. Butts told Coleman “that [he] knew he wasn’t a resident

of the community” and that he would consider him a trespasser if he did not

“go inside [of an apartment], or start walking or do something other than the

loitering . . . .” Tr. pp. 15-16. When Coleman did not comply, Butts decided

he was a trespasser and called the police.

[4] Butts soon cancelled the call to police because an individual led Coleman into

an apartment, and Butts was unable to give the police an exact location for

Coleman. As Coleman walked away, however, Butts verbally informed him

that he was considered a trespasser, stating: “[A]s an agent of the property, you

Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 49A02-1601-CR-183 | October 5, 2016 Page 2 of 6 are hereby trespassed from Strawbridge Green Apartments . . . – that includes

all building[s], sidewalks, yards and grass of the community.” Id. at 17.

[5] On July 4, 2015, Butts again encountered Coleman on the property and advised

him that he was trespassing. Coleman ignored Butts, proceeded to place items

in a trash dumpster, and then retreated to an apartment. Butts called the police.

An officer with the Indianapolis Metropolitan Police Department arrived at the

complex, entered the apartment to which Coleman had retreated, and arrested

Coleman for trespassing.

1 [6] Coleman was charged with Class A misdemeanor criminal trespass.

Following a bench trial, Coleman was found guilty as charged.

Issues [7] Coleman presents two issues:

I. Whether sufficient evidence was presented to establish an agency relationship between CSI and the owner of the apartment building; and II. Whether there was sufficient evidence to prove Coleman did not have a property interest in the apartment in which he was found.

1 Ind. Code § 35-43-2-2(b)(1) (2014).

Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 49A02-1601-CR-183 | October 5, 2016 Page 3 of 6 Discussion and Decision [8] When reviewing sufficiency claims, we consider only the probative evidence

and reasonable inferences supporting the judgment, without reweighing the

evidence or reassessing witness credibility. Morgan v. State, 22 N.E.3d 570 (Ind.

2014). We affirm if there is substantial evidence of probative value such that a

reasonable trier of fact could have concluded the defendant was guilty beyond a

reasonable doubt. Bailey v. State, 907 N.E.2d 1003 (Ind. 2009).

[9] To convict Coleman of criminal trespass, the State needed to prove beyond a

reasonable doubt that Coleman (1) did not have a contractual interest in the

apartment complex property, and (2) knowingly or intentionally entered the

property (3) after having been denied entry by the owner of the apartment

complex or the owner’s agent. See Ind. Code § 35-43-2-2(b)(1).

I. Agency Relationship

[10] Coleman first contends that Butts was without authority to deny him entry to

the apartment complex because the evidence at trial did not adequately

establish an agency relationship between CSI and the owner of the complex.

We disagree.

[11] The evidence was that the property management company overseeing the

complex contracted with CSI to provide security services at the Strawbridge

Green Apartments. Butts testified that he signed the contract and that under

the contract, he had the authority to act as the apartment complex’s agent.

Butts further testified that one of his duties was to prevent loitering. From this

Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 49A02-1601-CR-183 | October 5, 2016 Page 4 of 6 evidence, a reasonable fact-finder could determine that Butts had the authority

to act on behalf of the complex and that Coleman was barred from entering by

an agent of the owner.

II. Contractual Interest

[12] Coleman next argues that the State did not present sufficient evidence to show

he lacked a contractual interest in the apartment in which he was found. He

maintains that the renter of the apartment gave him permission to stay there

and that he had been on home detention at that location. He contends that his

reasonable belief that he had a right to be in the apartment should have

precluded prosecution for criminal trespass.

[13] A “contractual interest,” as it is used in the criminal trespass statute, refers to

the right to be present on another’s property, arising out of an agreement

between at least two parties that creates an obligation to do or not to do a

particular thing. A.E.B. v. State, 756 N.E.2d 536, 540 (Ind. Ct. App. 2001). In

proving the lack of a contractual interest, the State need not “disprove every

conceivable contractual interest” that a defendant might have obtained in the

real property at issue. Fleck v. State, 508 N.E.2d 539, 541 (Ind. 1987). The State

satisfies its burden when it disproves those contractual interests that are

reasonably apparent from the context and circumstances under which the

trespass is alleged to have occurred. Lyles v. State, 970 N.E.2d 140 (Ind. 2012).

[14] Sufficient evidence was presented that Coleman had no contractual interest in

the apartment in which he was found, and that his belief that he had a right to

Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 49A02-1601-CR-183 | October 5, 2016 Page 5 of 6 be in the apartment was not reasonable. Coleman was not listed on the lease of

the apartment and Coleman had previously been warned by Butts that his

presence on the apartment complex property was considered a trespass. See

Myers v. State, 190 Ind. 269, 272, 130 N.E. 116, 117 (1921) (belief that one has a

right to be on the property of another “must have a fair and reasonable

foundation”). There was no evidence that Coleman had any enforceable right

against the actual renter, and Coleman’s act of listing the address as his location

for home detention likewise did not create any enforceable obligation. Lyles,

970 N.E.2d at 143 (defendant lacking a contractual interest held to be

trespasser).

Conclusion [15] For the foregoing reasons, we affirm the judgment of the trial court.

[16] Affirmed.

Vaidik, C.J., and Riley, J., concur.

Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 49A02-1601-CR-183 | October 5, 2016 Page 6 of 6