Isaiah Christmas v. State of Indiana (mem. dec.)

• Court: Indiana Court of Appeals
• Decided: April 11, 2018
• Docket: 34A04-1710-CR-2383
• Status: Published

Opinion

MEMORANDUM DECISION FILED Pursuant to Ind. Appellate Rule 65(D), Apr 11 2018, 7:51 am this Memorandum Decision shall not be CLERK regarded as precedent or cited before any Indiana Supreme Court Court of Appeals court except for the purpose of establishing and Tax Court

the defense of res judicata, collateral estoppel, or the law of the case.

ATTORNEY FOR APPELLANT ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE Donald E.C. Leicht Curtis T. Hill, Jr. Kokomo, Indiana Attorney General of Indiana

J.T. Whitehead Deputy Attorney General Indianapolis, Indiana

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA

Isaiah Christmas, April 11, 2018 Appellant-Defendant, Court of Appeals Case No. 34A04-1710-CR-2383 v. Appeal from the Howard Superior Court State of Indiana, The Honorable Brant J. Parry, Appellee-Plaintiff. Judge Trial Court Cause No. 34D02-1501-F5-17

Barnes, Judge.

Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 34A04-1710-CR-2383 | April 11, 2018 Page 1 of 6 Case Summary [1] Isaiah Christmas appeals his conviction for Level 5 felony sexual misconduct.

We affirm.

Issue [2] The sole issue before us is whether there is sufficient evidence to sustain

Christmas’s conviction.

Facts [3] R.M. was convicted of dealing in cocaine and began serving in-home detention

for that offense in December of 2014. Her reporting officer was Doug Hoover.

After beginning in-home detention, R.M. met Christmas, who was a field

officer with Howard County Community Corrections. Christmas allowed

R.M. into his home so she could drink alcohol with him there, which violated

her in-home detention rules. R.M. would drink whatever Christmas provided

her, which was typically served in either a canning jar or mason jar. Christmas

said it was moonshine, but R.M. thought it tasted like rubbing alcohol. R.M.

expressed her concerns to Christmas about going to jail for violating the rules of

in-home detention. Christmas assured R.M. that he “was the only officer

working” and to trust him. Tr. Vol. II p.147.

[4] R.M. later told Hoover about her meetings with Christmas. R.M. told Hoover

that she and Christmas had been in daily contact and that they had been

hanging out. R.M. also told Hoover that Christmas brought her moonshine

and that one day, after spending time with Christmas, she woke up naked. Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 34A04-1710-CR-2383 | April 11, 2018 Page 2 of 6 R.M. explained that she felt obligated to be with Christmas. Shortly thereafter,

Hoover contacted Detective Greg Hargrove to open an investigation into

Christmas’s conduct.

[5] On or about January 18, 2015, R.M. got drunk with Christmas. Around 1:00

a.m. the next morning, Christmas called R.M. to tell her that he was coming

back to pick her up. When Christmas came back, he brought more alcohol with

him for R.M. to drink during the ride. After picking up R.M., Christmas drove

them both to a hotel. R.M. was intoxicated by the time they arrived at the

hotel. Once Christmas and R.M. arrived at the hotel, R.M. texted Hargrove to

tell him where she was.

[6] Once inside the hotel room, R.M. continued to drink. R.M. only remembered

sitting on the edge of the bed and then later waking up with no pants on. When

R.M. woke up, Christmas was performing oral sex on her and had his fingers

inside her vagina. Soon thereafter, there was a knock at the door. Christmas

went out the window where police officers were waiting for him. After being

apprehended, Christmas admitted to going to the hotel to be with a girl, and

that girl was R.M.

[7] Officers took R.M. to the Community Corrections office, then home, and then

to the hospital. While at the hospital, R.M. was examined by a sexual assault

nurse. During the investigation, officers collected DNA from Christmas, as

well as a cutting from R.M.’s underwear she wore on the day in question. The

Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 34A04-1710-CR-2383 | April 11, 2018 Page 3 of 6 DNA sample from the underwear was consistent with two individuals, R.M.

and Christmas.

[8] On January 23, 2015, the State charged Christmas with one count of sexual

misconduct, a Level 5 felony. He was tried by a jury trial on September 19,

2017, and found guilty as charged. Christmas was sentenced to three years with

913 days executed, and supervised probation for 182 days. Christmas now

appeals his conviction.

Analysis [9] Christmas claims there is insufficient evidence to sustain his conviction for

Level 5 felony sexual misconduct. When analyzing a claim of insufficient

evidence to support a conviction, we must consider only the probative evidence

and reasonable inferences supporting the judgment. Sallee v. State, 51 N.E.3d

130, 133 (Ind. 2016). “It is the factfinder’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.” Id. The evidence does not have to

overcome every reasonable hypothesis of innocence, and it is sufficient if an

inference may reasonably be drawn to support the conviction. Id.

[10] In order to convict Christmas of Level 5 felony sexual misconduct, as charged,

the State was required to prove that he is a service provider who knowingly or

intentionally engaged in sexual intercourse or other sexual conduct with a

person who is subject to lawful detention or lawful supervision. Ind. Code § 35-

Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 34A04-1710-CR-2383 | April 11, 2018 Page 4 of 6 44.1-3-10(b). A service provider includes a person employed by a governmental

entity. I.C. § 35-44.1-3-10(a)(2)(A)(ii).

[11] Christmas, who was a field officer with Howard County Community

Corrections, was apprehended at a hotel with R.M., an in-home detainee of

Community Corrections. Christmas admitted to going to the hotel to be with

R.M. R.M. testified to Christmas performing sexual acts on her while at the

hotel, and DNA evidence corroborated her testimony. We regard Christmas’s

contention on appeal as asking us to assess R.M.’s credibility, which we cannot

do. See Sallee, 51 N.E.3d at 133.1 The evidence is sufficient to prove that

Christmas knowingly or intentionally engaged in sexual intercourse or other

sexual conduct with R.M.

Conclusion [12] There is sufficient evidence to sustain Christmas’s conviction for Level 5 felony

sexual misconduct. We affirm.

1 Christmas argues in part that the DNA evidence was erroneously admitted into evidence. Indiana Appellate Rule 46 sets out the substantive requirements for an appellant’s brief. That rule provides: “The argument must contain the contentions of the appellant on the issues presented, supported by cogent reasoning. Each contention must be supported by citations to the authorities, statutes, and the Appendix or parts of the Record on Appeal relied on. . . .” Ind. Appellate Rule 46(A)(8)(a). “A litigant who fails to support his arguments with appropriate citations to legal authority and record evidence waives those arguments for our review.” Pierce v. State, 29 N.E.3d 1258, 1267 (Ind. 2015). Here, Christmas’s argument in his brief does not contain cogent reasoning or any citation to authority regarding the admissibility of evidence, as required in an appellant’s brief. Because Christmas has failed to support his argument with appropriate citations to legal authority, he has waived this argument for our review.

Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 34A04-1710-CR-2383 | April 11, 2018 Page 5 of 6 Affirmed.

Najam, J., and Mathias, J., concur.

Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 34A04-1710-CR-2383 | April 11, 2018 Page 6 of 6