Jonathan Finley v. State of Indiana (mem. dec.)

• Court: Indiana Court of Appeals
• Decided: September 18, 2015
• Docket: 49A05-1503-CR-88
• Status: Published

Opinion

MEMORANDUM DECISION Pursuant to Ind. Appellate Rule 65(D), Sep 18 2015, 8:50 am this Memorandum Decision shall not be regarded as precedent or cited before any court except for the purpose of establishing the defense of res judicata, collateral estoppel, or the law of the case.

ATTORNEY FOR APPELLANT ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE Ellen M. O’Connor Gregory F. Zoeller Marion County Public Defender Agency Attorney General of Indiana Indianapolis, Indiana Katherine Modesitt Cooper Deputy Attorney General Indianapolis, Indiana

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA

Jonathan Finley, September 18, 2015 Appellant-Defendant, Court of Appeals Case No. 49A05-1503-CR-88 v. Appeal from the Marion Superior Court State of Indiana, The Honorable William J. Nelson, Appellee-Plaintiff Judge The Honorable Cheryl Rivera, Judge Pro Tempore Trial Court Cause No. 49F18-1309-FD-58730

Baker, Judge.

Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 49A05-1503-CR-88 | September 18, 2015 Page 1 of 5 [1] Defendant Jonathan Finley appeals his conviction of Class D Felony Theft,1

arguing that the evidence is insufficient to support the conviction. Finding the

evidence sufficient, we affirm.

Facts [2] While on his routine patrol in Marion County in the evening hours of

September 4, 2013, Police Officer Brian Robertson drove by Team 100 Motor

Sports Automotive Dealership. The business had closed, but Officer Robertson

noticed that one of the Cadillacs had an open trunk, and decided to investigate.

He dimmed his lights and approached the vehicle, where he saw a man—later

identified as Finley—leaning into the trunk, “his arms and such . . . moving like

he was working with tools.” Tr. 15.

[3] Officer Robertson observed the Cadillac’s stereo head gear lying on the ground

next to Finley’s foot. Officer Robertson also found the Cadillac’s rear-view

mirror, a quarter-inch chrome ratchet, a ten-millimeter socket, and an extension

for the socket inside the Cadillac’s trunk.

[4] Officer Robertson Mirandized2 Finley and began making inquiries. Finley said

that he did not know how the stereo got outside the vehicle and that the tools

did not belong to him. He consented to a search of his minivan, which was

parked just outside the dealership. Officer Robertson noticed that the minivan’s

1 Ind. Code § 35-42-4-2. 2 Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 (1966).

Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 49A05-1503-CR-88 | September 18, 2015 Page 2 of 5 sliding door was open, and inside, on the driver’s side rear passenger seat, he

found a socket set. Several tools were missing from the set, including a quarter-

inch ratchet, a ten-millimeter socket, and an extension.

[5] On September 9, 2013, the State charged Finley with class D felony theft. On

December 22, 2014, the trial court held a bench trial and found him guilty as

charged. On February 2, 2015, the trial court sentenced him to 545 days, with

180 days to be served on home detention and 365 days to be served on

probation. Finley now appeals.

Discussion and Decision [6] Finley makes one argument on appeal: that there is insufficient evidence to

support his conviction. Our standard of review for sufficiency of the evidence is

well-settled:

When reviewing the sufficiency of the evidence to support a conviction, we consider only the probative evidence and reasonable inferences supporting the trial court’s decision. It is the fact-finder’s role, and not ours, to assess witness credibility and weigh the evidence to determine whether it is sufficient to support a conviction. When we are confronted with conflicting evidence, we consider it most favorably to the trial court's ruling. We will affirm a conviction unless no reasonable fact- finder could find the elements of the crime proven beyond a reasonable doubt. Therefore, it is not necessary that the evidence overcome every reasonable hypothesis of innocence; rather, the evidence is sufficient if an inference reasonably may be drawn from it to support the trial court's decision.

Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 49A05-1503-CR-88 | September 18, 2015 Page 3 of 5 Brummett v. State, 10 N.E.3d 78, 89 (Ind. Ct. App. 2014) (citations omitted). To

convict Finley of theft, the State needed to prove beyond a reasonable doubt

that Finley knowingly or intentionally exerted unauthorized control over

property of another person, with intent to deprive the other person of any part

of its value or use. I.C. § 35-42-4-2(a).

[7] In support of his argument, Finley directs our attention to his trial testimony.

Specifically, he testified that he likes to look at used cars on the lot after hours

so he will not be harassed by salespeople. Tr. 31. Finley claims that on the

night in question, he saw two people leaving the car lot as he arrived. Id. at 31-

32. He further claims that he popped open the trunk to check out its size, saw

the missing panel, and leaned into the trunk to conduct a more thorough

investigation. Id. at 32-33. Finally, he says that the tools were not his, and the

missing pieces in his socket set were hidden under the top layer of the socket

set. Id. at 34-35.

[8] But all of this evidence was already presented to the factfinder, who deemed it

not credible. It is not our role to assess the credibility of these statements. Our

role is limited to determining whether the State’s evidence could lead a

reasonable factfinder to find all the elements established beyond a reasonable

doubt.

[9] The State presented the following evidence. Officer Robertson saw the Cadillac

with its trunk open. Tr. 13. He pulled up and found Finley partially inside the

trunk working with tools. Id. at 14. Officer Robertson found three tools from a

Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 49A05-1503-CR-88 | September 18, 2015 Page 4 of 5 socket set inside the trunk of the vehicle. Id. at 17. He found the precise

corresponding components missing from the socket set inside Finley’s vehicle.

Id. at 19. Finally, the owner of the dealership had not authorized Finley to

remove parts from the vehicle. Id. at 27.

[10] From this evidence, a reasonable fact-finder could find that Finley exerted

control over the stereo and the rear-view mirror; that he did so knowingly; that

this property was of another person; that his doing so was unauthorized; and

that he had the intent to deprive the other person of its value. The fact-finder

would not have been unreasonable in finding Finley’s alternative explanation—

that he was investigating the inside of the trunk with tools that were not his but

exactly matched his socket set—to strain credulity. In sum, the evidence is

more than sufficient to sustain the verdict.

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

Bailey, J., and Mathias, J., concur.

Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 49A05-1503-CR-88 | September 18, 2015 Page 5 of 5