Joshua Johnson v. State of Indiana (mem. dec.)

• Court: Indiana Court of Appeals
• Decided: March 16, 2016
• Docket: 08A02-1507-CR-884
• Status: Published

Opinion

MEMORANDUM DECISION Mar 16 2016, 8:50 am Pursuant to Ind. Appellate Rule 65(D), 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 Steven Knecht Gregory F. Zoeller Vonderheide & Knecht, P.C. Attorney General of Indiana Lafayette, Indiana Richard C. Webster Deputy Attorney General Indianapolis, Indiana

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA

Joshua Johnson, March 16, 2016 Appellant-Defendant, Court of Appeals Case No. 08A02-1507-CR-884 v. Appeal from the Carroll Superior Court State of Indiana, The Honorable Kurtis G. Fouts, Appellee-Plaintiff Judge Trial Court Cause No. 08D01-1501-CM-9

Baker, Judge.

Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 08A02-1507-CR-884 | March 16, 2016 Page 1 of 4 [1] Joshua Johnson appeals his conviction for Theft, a class A misdemeanor, 1

arguing that there is insufficient evidence supporting the conviction. Finding

the evidence sufficient, we affirm.

Facts [2] On January 11, 2015, Joshua Johnson went to a supermarket in Delphi. He

placed an order at the deli counter for a chicken breast and three chicken legs.

Two price stickers were generated, one for the breast and another for the legs,

and an employee stuck both stickers on the box holding the chicken and handed

it to Johnson. The employee observed Johnson walk over to the fountain

drinks area, peel off one of the stickers, and place the sticker in his pocket. The

employee informed her manager what she had observed. Johnson filled a

fountain drink and walked to a register, where he paid for the drink and the

chicken breast. He did not pay for the legs because he had removed that sticker

from the box. After the manager confronted Johnson about his failure to pay

for the chicken legs, Johnson exited the store and drove away with the chicken

breast and chicken legs. He did not offer to pay for the chicken legs.

[3] The employee and manager phoned the police, and both individuals later

identified Johnson from a photo array as the man who had stolen the chicken

legs. On January 13, 2015, the State charged Johnson with class A

1 Ind. Code § 35-43-4-2(a).

Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 08A02-1507-CR-884 | March 16, 2016 Page 2 of 4 misdemeanor theft. Following a June 30, 2015, jury trial, the jury found

Johnson guilty as charged. On July 6, 2015, the trial court sentenced Johnson

to 365 days imprisonment, with 335 days suspended to probation. Johnson

now appeals.

Discussion and Decision [4] Johnson’s sole argument on appeal is that the evidence is insufficient to support

his conviction. When reviewing the sufficiency of the evidence supporting a

conviction, we will neither reweigh the evidence nor assess witness credibility.

Bailey v. State, 907 N.E.2d 1003, 1005 (Ind. 2009). We will consider only the

evidence supporting the judgment and any reasonable inferences that may be

drawn therefrom, and we will affirm if a reasonable trier of fact could have

found the defendant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. Id. To convict Johnson

of class A misdemeanor theft, the State was required to prove beyond a

reasonable doubt that he knowingly or intentionally exerted unauthorized

control over the property of another person, with the intent to deprive the other

person of any part of its value or use. I.C. § 35-43-4-2(a).

[5] In this case, the record reveals the following evidence supporting Johnson’s

conviction:

 Johnson ordered a chicken breast and three chicken legs. Two price stickers were generated and an employee placed both stickers on the box before handing it to Johnson.  The employee observed Johnson peel off one of the stickers and place it in his pocket.

Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 08A02-1507-CR-884 | March 16, 2016 Page 3 of 4  Johnson paid for the chicken breast but not the chicken legs and then exited the store with the chicken after being confronted. He did not offer to pay for the chicken legs.  Both the employee and manager positively identified Johnson from a photo array as the man who had stolen the chicken.

This evidence is sufficient to support Johnson’s conviction. His arguments to

the contrary amount to a request that we reweigh evidence and assess witness

credibility—a request we decline.

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

Bradford, J., and Pyle, J., concur.

Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 08A02-1507-CR-884 | March 16, 2016 Page 4 of 4