John A. Bridges, Jr. v. State of Indiana (mem. dec.)

• Court: Indiana Court of Appeals
• Decided: April 20, 2016
• Docket: 02A04-1507-CR-1046
• Status: Published

Opinion

MEMORANDUM DECISION Pursuant to Ind. Appellate Rule 65(D), FILED this Memorandum Decision shall not be Apr 20 2016, 8:34 am

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 Mark A. Thoma Gregory F. Zoeller Deputy Public Defender Attorney General of Indiana Leonard, Hammond, Thoma & Terrill Fort Wayne, Indiana Paula J. Beller Deputy Attorney General Indianapolis, Indiana

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA

John A. Bridges, Jr., April 20, 2016 Appellant-Defendant, Court of Appeals Case No. 02A04-1507-CR-1046 v. Appeal from the Allen Superior Court State of Indiana, The Honorable Wendy W. Davis Appellee-Plaintiff. Trial Court Cause No. 02D04-1502-F2-5

May, Judge.

Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 02A04-1507-CR-1046 | April 20, 2016 Page 1 of 8 [1] John A. Bridges appeals his convictions of the following offenses: 1 Count I,

dealing in cocaine or narcotic drug, a Level 2 felony; 2 Count II, dealing in

cocaine or narcotic drug, a Level 4 felony; 3 Count IV, dealing in cocaine or

narcotic drug, a Level 5 felony; 4 and Count V, dealing in cocaine or narcotic

drug, a Level 5 felony. 5 Bridges argues the evidence was insufficient to convict

him. We affirm.

Facts and Procedural History [2] On January 20, 2015, Emily Begnene made a controlled buy of heroin. She

was acting as a confidential informant and was supervised by Detective Shane

Heath of the Fort Wayne Police Department’s Vice and Narcotics Division.

Police drove Begnene to 3025 Plaza, Allen County. Begnene met Bridges and

purchased over a gram of heroin from him. Bridges’ girlfriend, Yolanda

McGee, was present during the sale. The heroin purchased was a brown

powdery substance.

[3] On January 30, 2015, Begnene made a second controlled buy of heroin, again

supervised by Detective Heath. Police drove Begnene to meet Bridges at 814

1 Bridges was also charged with possession of a firearm and dealing in marijuana. The State dismissed the firearm charge, and Bridges admitted he was guilty of dealing in marijuana. 2 Ind. Code § 35-48-4-1 (2014). 3 Ind. Code § 35-48-4-1(c) (2014). 4 Ind. Code § 35-48-4-1(a)(1) (2014). 5 Ind. Code § 35-48-4-1(a)(1) (2014).

Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 02A04-1507-CR-1046 | April 20, 2016 Page 2 of 8 Lake Avenue, Apartment 3, Allen County, where Bridges and McGee resided.

McGee was also present during this controlled buy. The heroin purchased was

a grayish-blue substance. After this buy, police brought Begnene back to the

station, where she identified Bridges in a photo array as the person from whom

she had purchased heroin on both occasions.

[4] Based on the controlled buys, Detective Heath obtained a search warrant to

search Bridges’ apartment at 814 Lake Avenue. Bridges and McGee lived at

the apartment, but were not listed on the lease. The legal tenant was Christina

Sims, who allowed Bridges to live at the apartment in exchange for drugs and

rent payment.

[5] On February 3, 2015, Fort Wayne police executed the search warrant. After

police breached the door, Bridges and McGee exited the apartment. Bridges

was wearing only boxer shorts, so he asked Detective Heath to bring him his

pants from a chair in the living room. Detective Heath found Bridges’ wallet,

identification, and $1,300.00 in cash in the pants’ pocket. On the same chair,

police discovered a size 5X hoodie jacket, which was proportional to the size of

Bridges’ pants. Police found in the pocket of the jacket a baggie containing

substances determined to be cocaine and heroin. The drugs were packaged in a

manner common for distribution.

[6] The search also uncovered other incriminating items. A container of plastic

baggies and a scale that tested positive for cocaine residue were found in a desk

Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 02A04-1507-CR-1046 | April 20, 2016 Page 3 of 8 drawer. 6 Three clear plastic baggies were found with the corners removed.

Detectives found a total of 90.8 grams of marijuana in a baggie in the bathroom

toilet bowl and in a jar beside the chair where the other drugs and clothing were

found. A loaded firearm was found under the mattress in the bedroom where

Bridges had been sleeping. Detective Jamie Masters found a smartphone with a

telephone number corresponding to the number Begnene had called to set up

both controlled buys from Bridges.

[7] On February 9, 2015, the State charged Bridges with Count I, dealing in

cocaine or narcotic drug, a Level 2 felony; Count II, dealing in cocaine or

narcotic drug, a Level 4 felony; Count III, unlawful possession of a firearm by

serious violent felon, a Level 4 felony; 7 Count IV, dealing in cocaine or narcotic

drug, a Level 5 felony; Count V, dealing in cocaine or narcotic drug, a Level 5

felony; and Count VI, dealing in marijuana, hash oil or hashish, a Level 6

felony. 8

[8] A bench trial was held on June 16 and 17, 2015. The State dismissed the

possession of a firearm charge. During closing argument, Bridges admitted he

was guilty of dealing in marijuana. The trial court found Bridges guilty of the

6 At trial, Detective Tina Blackburn testified to the significance of the baggies and the scale found in the desk drawer, indicating it is common for scales to be used to weigh drugs before packaging and for drugs to be packaged in plastic baggies. 7 Ind. Code § 35-47-4-5 (2014). 8 Ind. Code § 35-48-4-10 (2014).

Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 02A04-1507-CR-1046 | April 20, 2016 Page 4 of 8 remaining Counts and sentenced Bridges to a total of twenty years of

incarceration.

Discussion and Decision [9] Bridges argues the evidence is insufficient to support his convictions for two

reasons. First, he challenges Begnene’s credibility and the validity of her

testimony regarding the two controlled buys. Second, he claims the evidence of

the heroin and cocaine found in the apartment was “circumstantial at best” and

“simply too tenuous” to support his other two convictions. (Appellant’s Br. at

13.) The evidence is sufficient to support all of his convictions.

[10] When reviewing sufficiency of evidence to support a conviction, we consider

only the probative evidence and reasonable inferences supporting the court’s

decision. Drane v. State, 867 N.E.2d 144, 146 (Ind. 2007). We affirm the

judgment unless no reasonable trier of fact could find the elements of the crime

proven beyond a reasonable doubt. Id. Evidence need not overcome every

reasonable hypothesis of innocence and is sufficient if reasonable inferences

may be drawn from it to support the conviction. Id. at 147. We do not reweigh

the evidence or judge the credibility of witnesses. It is the fact-finder’s role, not

that of this court, to assess witness credibility and weigh the evidence to

determine whether it is sufficient to support a conviction. Id. at 146.

Dealing Convictions for Sales to Begnene

[11] Bridges maintains that he “did not knowingly or intentionally deliver heroin to

the confidential informant on January 20th or 30th, 2015 . . . .” (Br. of Appellant

Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 02A04-1507-CR-1046 | April 20, 2016 Page 5 of 8 at 17.) To convict Bridges, the State was required to prove Bridges delivered

heroin to Begnene on those two dates. See Ind. Code § 35-48-4-1(a)(1).

[12] Bridges challenges Begnene’s credibility. At Bridges’ bench trial, the trial court

had the opportunity to observe Begnene testify under direct and cross

examination. The court noted it had presided over many cases involving

confidential informants and explicitly found Begnene was credible. Our

standard of review prohibits us from reassessing the court’s determination. See

Drane, 867 N.E.2d at 146 (appellate court does not reassess witness credibility).

[13] There was sufficient evidence to convict Bridges of Counts IV and V, dealing in

cocaine or a narcotic drug as Level 5 felonies. He asserts “it is reasonable to

infer that McGee, and not Bridges, could have delivered the heroin to

Begnene.” (Br. of Appellant at 17.) The State presented ample evidence to the

contrary and we may not reweigh it. Begnene testified Bridges was the man

from whom she purchased heroin during both controlled buys. Furthermore,

she identified Bridges from a photo array as the man who sold her heroin.

“[T]he sole uncorroborated testimony of the informant-buyer is sufficient to

convict . . . .” Hudson v. State, 462 N.E.2d 1077, 1083 (Ind. Ct. App. 1984).

Dealing Convictions for Drugs in Hoodie

[14] In order to convict Bridges of Count I, dealing in cocaine or other narcotic

drug, a Level 2 felony, the State was required to prove that Bridges knowingly

or intentionally possessed with the intent to deliver cocaine in the amount of

ten (10) grams or more. See Ind. Code § 35-48-4-1(e). To convict Bridges of

Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 02A04-1507-CR-1046 | April 20, 2016 Page 6 of 8 Count II, dealing in cocaine or other narcotic drug, a Level 4 felony, the State

was required to prove that Bridges knowingly or intentionally possessed with

the intent to deliver heroin in an amount between one and five grams. See Ind.

Code § 35-48-4-1(c).

[15] Bridges maintains that he “did not knowingly or intentionally . . . possessed

[sic] cocaine or heroin on February 3, 2015.” (Br. of Appellant at 17.) He

argues that while the hoodie jacket containing the cocaine and heroin were

found near his pants, there was “no evidence introduced to tie the hoodie or the

drugs found in it to Mr. Bridges, no DNA, no hair samples, the size of the

hoodie, compared to Mr. Bridges, and no fingerprints on the plastic bags

containing the drugs.” (Id. at 13.)

[16] We acknowledge “[t]he mere presence at the scene of a crime is insufficient to

sustain a conviction.” Hunter v. State, 578 N.E.2d 353, 358 (Ind. 1991), reh’g

denied. “However, presence at the scene connected with other facts and

circumstances tending to show participation will support a conviction.” Id.

Here, when the search warrant was executed, Bridges directed the police to a

chair in the living room to retrieve his pants. Detective Heath found $1,300.00

in cash in Bridges’ pants, yet Bridges said he was unemployed at the time. On

the same chair, a size 5X hoodie jacket proportional to the size of the pants was

found. The jacket pocket contained cocaine and the same two types of heroin

that Begnene previously purchased from Bridges. Other paraphernalia

indicative of distribution were also found in the apartment. Bridges’ presence at

Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 02A04-1507-CR-1046 | April 20, 2016 Page 7 of 8 the apartment, together with Begnene’s testimony and the discovery of the

phone used to set up the drug sales, is enough to support Bridges’ convictions.

[17] Bridges invites us to speculate that “the hoodie and the drugs could have

belonged to the actual legal tenant of the apartment – Christina Sims.” (Br. of

Appellant at 18.) This is merely an invitation to reinterpret and reweigh the

evidence. See Sharp v. State, 42 N.E.3d 512, 514 (Ind. 2015) (court is forbidden

from reweighing evidence). Our role is not to consider other reasonable

inferences that could have been drawn from the evidence. See Drane, 867

N.E.2d at 146. Rather, when reviewing the sufficiency of the evidence to

support a conviction, we consider “only the probative evidence and reasonable

inferences supporting the [conviction].” Drane, 867 N.E.2d at 146 (emphasis in

original). The evidence presented and the reasonable inferences therefrom

support Bridges’ convictions for Counts I and II.

Conclusion [18] There is sufficient evidence to support Bridges’ convictions for dealing in

cocaine or narcotic drugs. We affirm.

[19] Affirmed.

Najam, J., and Riley, J., concur.

Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 02A04-1507-CR-1046 | April 20, 2016 Page 8 of 8