James Eubanks v. State of Indiana (mem. dec.)

• Court: Indiana Court of Appeals
• Decided: August 5, 2016
• Docket: 45A03-1512-CR-2347
• Status: Published

Opinion

MEMORANDUM DECISION FILED Pursuant to Ind. Appellate Rule 65(D), Aug 05 2016, 5:51 am this Memorandum Decision shall not be regarded as precedent or cited before any CLERK Indiana Supreme Court court except for the purpose of establishing Court of Appeals and Tax Court

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

ATTORNEY FOR APPELLANT ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE Marce Gonzalez, Jr. Gregory F. Zoeller Dyer, Indiana Attorney General of Indiana Tyler G. Banks Deputy Attorney General Indianapolis, Indiana

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA

James Eubanks, August 5, 2016 Appellant-Defendant, Court of Appeals Case No. 45A03-1512-CR-2347 v. Appeal from the Lake Superior Court State of Indiana, The Honorable Salvador Vasquez, Appellee-Plaintiff Judge Trial Court Cause No. 45G01-1409-F5-23

Baker, Judge.

Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 45A03-1512-CR-2347 | August 5, 2016 Page 1 of 6 [1] James Eubanks appeals his conviction for Burglary, a Level 5 felony.1 He

argues that there is insufficient evidence supporting the conviction. Finding the

evidence sufficient, we affirm.

Facts

[2] During the relevant time frame, Robert Mardis owned an unoccupied rental

home in Hammond. In early September 2014, Mardis went to work on the

unoccupied property and saw no damage to the residence’s back door.

[3] About two weeks later, on September 24, Officer Frank Eggers of the

Hammond Police Department received a dispatch call to Mardis’s rental home.

The caller reported “a black male wearing a Comcast type worker vest [that]

went into a residence at the 6433 Van Buren [property] through the back door

and was possibly taking items.” Tr. p. 25. When he arrived at the property,

Officer Eggers observed that a window directly above the back door’s handle

had been broken out, allowing easy access to the door handle and entrance into

the building. He also noticed two other items: a bicycle near the back foyer

area and a bag full of cut copper piping. All of this led Officer Eggers, an

evidence technician, to believe that a crime had occurred. He then attempted to

locate the owner of the property, but was unsuccessful. Predicting that a

suspect would return for the bicycle and bag, Officer Eggers “punctured the rear

1 Ind. Code § 35-43-2-1.

Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 45A03-1512-CR-2347 | August 5, 2016 Page 2 of 6 tire of the bicycle to make it difficult for that subject or subjects to leave.” Id. at

28. He also took the bag, went inside the residence, and spread the scrap metal

around the residence’s basement. After he exited the residence, Officer Eggers

closed and locked the back door. He then left the scene.

[4] Thirty minutes later, Officer Eggers was dispatched again to the property on a

new report describing similar activity. The caller stated that the same male,

wearing the Comcast vest, was leaving the residence with a garbage can and

was walking down an adjacent alley. When Officer Eggers arrived, he saw that

another policeman, Corporal John Riordan, already had the suspect, later

identified as Eubanks, in custody. Officer Eggers noticed that the garbage can

in Eubanks’s possession held the same scrap metal that the officer had spread

around the residence’s basement. Moreover, Eubanks was carrying with him

the bicycle that Officer Eggers had seen at the property and was also wearing a

Comcast vest.

[5] Eubanks was then arrested and transported to jail by Corporal Riordan. During

the ride, Eubanks asked what charges he was facing. Corporal Riordan told

Eubanks that he was facing a burglary charge; in response, Eubanks stated that

“he didn’t know it was a burglary if the house was abandoned.” Id. at 67. In a

later interview and after being advised of his Miranda2 rights, Eubanks admitted

2 Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 (1966).

Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 45A03-1512-CR-2347 | August 5, 2016 Page 3 of 6 to entering the residence and taking scrap metal, but claimed that the back door

was open when he went to the property both times.

[6] On October 31, 2015, the trial court found Eubanks guilty of Level 5 burglary

following a bench trial. After finding Eubanks to be a habitual offender, the

trial court sentenced him to an aggregate term of six years of incarceration.

Eubanks now appeals.

Discussion and Decision

[7] Eubanks argues that there is insufficient evidence supporting the conviction.

When reviewing a claim of insufficient evidence, we do not reweigh the

evidence, nor do we judge the credibility of witnesses. McHenry v. State, 820

N.E.2d 124, 126 (Ind. 2005). Rather, we will affirm a conviction if any

reasonable juror could find the defendant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt

based on the probative evidence and reasonable inferences. Bailey v. State, 907

N.E.2d 1003, 1005 (Ind. 2009) (citing Henley v. State, 881 N.E.2d 639, 652 (Ind.

2008)). To convict Eubanks of Level 5 felony burglary, the State was required

to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that he broke and entered into Mardis’s

building with the intent to commit a felony or theft therein. Ind. Code § 35-43-

2-1.

Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 45A03-1512-CR-2347 | August 5, 2016 Page 4 of 6 [8] Eubanks asserts that the evidence is insufficient to prove that he broke and

entered the home, as he maintains that the door was open when he entered. 3

The evidence in the record establishes that Eubanks admitted to entering the

home and stealing scrap metal from it. Tr. p. 89–93. Officer Eggers testified

that, thirty minutes before Eubanks entered the home, the officer had closed

and locked the door. When Eubanks was arrested, he had items in his

possession that Officer Eggers had left inside the locked house. And Eubanks’s

description, including the Comcast vest he was wearing, matched the

description of the suspect. Eubanks is asking that we credit his version of

events over the officers’—in other words, he asks us to reweigh the evidence

and reassess witness credibility. We decline to do so. We find that the

evidence readily supports the conviction for burglary.

[9] Eubanks further argues that the incredible dubiosity rule renders the evidence

insufficient. This argument is unavailing. This limited exception recognizes

that, in very rare cases, a witness’s credibility is so untrustworthy and lacking as

to justify reversal on appeal. See Moore v. State, 27 N.E.3d 749, 755 (Ind. 2015).

Notably, our Supreme Court has recently reemphasized that we should only

invoke the incredible dubiosity exception “where a sole witness presents

inherently contradictory testimony which is equivocal or the result of coercion

and there is a complete lack of circumstantial evidence of the appellant’s guilt.” Id.

3 Our Supreme Court has recognized that walking through an open door does not constitute a “breaking,” which is an element for proving the crime of burglary. E.g., Passwater v. State, 248 Ind. 454, 458, 229 N.E.2d 718, 720 (Ind. 1967).

Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 45A03-1512-CR-2347 | August 5, 2016 Page 5 of 6 (emphases in original). Eubanks concedes that the rule does not apply in this

case, as more than one witness testified and there is a wealth of circumstantial

evidence of his guilt. We decline his request to broaden the rule.

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

May, J., and Brown, J., concur.

Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 45A03-1512-CR-2347 | August 5, 2016 Page 6 of 6