Devin Combs v. State of Indiana (mem. dec.)

• Court: Indiana Court of Appeals
• Decided: July 10, 2018
• Docket: 17A-CR-3059
• Status: Published

Opinion

MEMORANDUM DECISION Pursuant to Ind. Appellate Rule 65(D), this Memorandum Decision shall not be FILED regarded as precedent or cited before any Jul 10 2018, 8:06 am court except for the purpose of establishing CLERK the defense of res judicata, collateral Indiana Supreme Court Court of Appeals estoppel, or the law of the case. and Tax Court

ATTORNEY FOR APPELLANT ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE Richard J. Thonert Curtis T. Hill, Jr. Fort Wayne, Indiana Attorney General of Indiana

Matthew B. MacKenzie Deputy Attorney General Indianapolis, Indiana

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA

Devin Combs, July 10, 2018 Appellant-Defendant, Court of Appeals Case No. 17A-CR-3059 v. Appeal from the Noble Circuit Court State of Indiana, The Honorable Michael J. Kramer, Appellee-Plaintiff. Judge Trial Court Cause No. 57C01-1603-F4-14

Bradford, Judge.

Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 17A-CR-3059 | July 10, 2018 Page 1 of 6 Case Summary [1] Devin Combs was convicted of Level 4 felony dealing in methamphetamine

after he was caught fleeing a residence where law enforcement found evidence

of the manufacture of the drug. On appeal, Combs challenges the sufficiency of

the evidence to sustain his conviction. We affirm.

Facts and Procedural History [2] On March 21, 2016, law enforcement officers in Noble County went to a

residence and attempted to serve two warrants on Combs. Lora Gage owned

the residence and was known to associate with Combs. Prior to serving the

warrants, the officers formed a perimeter around the residence. When the

officers were in place, Officer James Sheffield knocked on the front door of the

residence. D.C., the seventeen-year-old son of Gage, answered the door and

invited Officer Sheffield inside. Once inside, Officer Sheffield could smell

chemicals that he knew to be associated with the production of

methamphetamine. Officer Sheffield asked Gage whether Combs was present

in the residence and Gage indicated that he was not. Officer Sheffield observed

that D.C. made “a frantic [gesture] with his head” toward a crawl space under

the main floor of the house and had “a frightened look” when he inquired about

Combs. Tr. Vol. II, p. 29.

[3] The smell emanating from the residence led Officer Sheffield to fear for the

safety of the occupants so he “had everybody exit the … residence.” Tr. Vol. II,

Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 17A-CR-3059 | July 10, 2018 Page 2 of 6 p. 29. Officer Sheffield walked over to the “trap door to the crawl space” and

opened the trap door. Tr. Vol. II, p. 30. After opening the trap door, “the odor

became very very strong.” Tr. Vol. II, p. 30. Officer Sheffield ordered “any

person that was down there to come out” and a male juvenile and a female

juvenile exited the crawl space. Tr. Vol. II, p. 30. As the juveniles were exiting

the crawl space, Officer Sheffield was notified by radio that Combs “had exited

the crawl space from a window … and was apprehended … trying to flee the

property from the rear.” Tr. Vol. II, p. 31.

[4] A subsequent search revealed numerous items associated with manufacturing

methamphetamine hidden in the crawl space. These items included: (1) a

bottle containing chemicals used to produce methamphetamine via the “one

pot” method, (2) coffee filters, (3) drain cleaner, (4) a glass smoking pipe, (5)

burned lithium battery strips and AA batteries, (6) a baggie containing a white

powdered substance that tested positive for methamphetamine, (7) cold packs,

and (8) a backpack marked with an abbreviated version of Combs’s name. Tr.

Vol. II, p. 73. The backpack contained various tools and supplies used to

manufacture methamphetamine.

[5] On March 22, 2016, the State charged Combs with Level 4 felony dealing in

methamphetamine. A bench trial was conducted on November 7, 2017, after

which Combs was found guilty as charged. The trial court subsequently

sentenced Combs to a ten-year term with eight years executed and two years

suspended to probation.

Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 17A-CR-3059 | July 10, 2018 Page 3 of 6 Discussion and Decision [6] Combs contends that the evidence is insufficient to sustain his conviction for

Level 4 felony dealing in methamphetamine.

When reviewing the sufficiency of the evidence to support a conviction, appellate courts must consider only the probative evidence and reasonable inferences supporting the verdict. It is the fact-finder’s role, not that of appellate courts, to assess witness credibility and weigh the evidence to determine whether it is sufficient to support a conviction. To preserve this structure, when appellate courts are confronted with conflicting evidence, they must consider it most favorably to the trial court’s ruling. Appellate courts affirm the conviction unless no reasonable fact- finder could find the elements of the crime proven beyond a reasonable doubt. It is therefore not necessary that the evidence overcome every reasonable hypothesis of innocence. The evidence is sufficient if an inference may reasonably be drawn from it to support the verdict.

Drane v. State, 867 N.E.2d 144, 146-47 (Ind. 2007) (citations, emphasis, and

quotations omitted). “In essence, we assess only whether the verdict could be

reached based on reasonable inferences that may be drawn from the evidence

presented.” Baker v. State, 968 N.E.2d 227, 229 (Ind. 2012) (emphasis in

original).

[7] At the time Combs committed the charged conduct, Indiana Code section 35-

48-4-1.1 provided as follows:

(a) A person who: (1) knowingly or intentionally: (A) manufactures;

Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 17A-CR-3059 | July 10, 2018 Page 4 of 6 (B) finances the manufacture of; (C) delivers; or (D) finances the delivery of; methamphetamine, pure or adulterated; or (2) possesses, with intent to: (A) manufacture; (B) finance the manufacture of; (C) deliver; or (D) finance the delivery of; methamphetamine, pure or adulterated; commits dealing in methamphetamine, a Level 5 felony, except as provided in subsections (b) through (e).

The offense was a Level 4 felony if “(1) the amount of the drug involved is at

least one (1) gram but less than five (5) grams; or (2) the amount of the drug

involved is less than one (1) gram and an enhancing circumstance applies.”

Ind. Code § 35-48-4-1.1(c).

[8] The evidence indicates that Gage initially lied to police and indicated that

Combs was not present in the residence. Combs, however, was apprehended

by police as he attempted to flee the crawl space through a window. The crawl

space contained numerous items used in the “one pot” method for

manufacturing methamphetamine and a backpack marked with an abbreviated

version of Combs’s first name. The backpack also contained numerous items

used during the manufacturing process. We conclude that the above-described

evidence is sufficient to sustain Combs’s conviction for Level 4 felony dealing

in methamphetamine. See Montgomery v. State, 22 N.E.3d 768, 781–82 (Ind. Ct.

App. 2014) (providing that evidence that the defendant was in possession of

numerous items used in the manufacture of methamphetamine and attempted Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 17A-CR-3059 | July 10, 2018 Page 5 of 6 to flee when approached by law enforcement was sufficient to sustain the

defendant’s conviction for manufacturing methamphetamine). Combs’s claim

to the contrary effectively amounts to an invitation to reweigh the evidence,

which we will not do. See Stewart v. State, 768 N.E.2d 433, 435 (Ind. 2002)

(providing that upon review, appellate courts do not reweigh the evidence or

assess the credibility of the witnesses).

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

Baker, J., Kirsch, J., concur.

Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 17A-CR-3059 | July 10, 2018 Page 6 of 6