Kapri U. White v. State of Indiana (mem. dec.)

• Court: Indiana Court of Appeals
• Decided: October 29, 2020
• Docket: 20A-CR-1029
• Status: Published

Opinion

MEMORANDUM DECISION Pursuant to Ind. Appellate Rule 65(D), this Memorandum Decision shall not be FILED regarded as precedent or cited before any Oct 29 2020, 9:00 am court except for the purpose of establishing CLERK the defense of res judicata, collateral Indiana Supreme Court Court of Appeals estoppel, or the law of the case. and Tax Court

ATTORNEY FOR APPELLANT ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE Ryan M. Gardner Curtis T. Hill, Jr. Deputy Public Defender Attorney General of Indiana Fort Wayne, Indiana Tiffany A. McCoy Deputy Attorney General Indianapolis, Indiana

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA

Kapri U. White, October 29, 2020 Appellant-Defendant, Court of Appeals Case No. 20A-CR-1029 v. Appeal from the Allen Superior Court State of Indiana, The Honorable David M. Zent, Appellee-Plaintiff Judge Trial Court Cause No. 02D06-1812-F3-80

Weissmann, Judge.

Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 20A-CR-1029 | October 29, 2020 Page 1 of 6 [1] Sixteen-year-old R.H. attempted to purchase a cell phone through Facebook

Marketplace in October 2018 but was robbed by the purported seller, later

identified as Kapri U. White. White challenges the sufficiency of the evidence

supporting his conviction for Level 3 felony Armed Robbery.1 Because White

was identified by several witnesses as the perpetrator and circumstantial

evidence bolstered those identifications, we affirm.

Facts [2] R.H. arranged to buy a used cell phone posted on Facebook Marketplace

through a Facebook account belonging to “Suarez Gomez.” The seller and

R.H. agreed through Facebook messaging to a price of $190 cash. After the

seller refused to travel to Ossian to complete the transaction, the seller and R.H.

agreed to meet at the intersection of South Park and Senate in Fort Wayne. As

R.H. drove with his parents and his three younger siblings to that location

October 18, 2018, R.H. communicated on his mother’s phone with the seller

through Facebook Messenger.

[3] After the family waited at the agreed location for about ten minutes, an

individual later identified as White walked toward their car. R.H.’s mother,

who was in the front passenger seat, rolled down her window and asked the

man if he was the phone seller. After the man indicated he was, R.H. exited the

1 Ind. Code § 35-42-5-1(a).

Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 20A-CR-1029 | October 29, 2020 Page 2 of 6 passenger side of the vehicle and asked to view the phone. The man gave the

phone to R.H. and then asked R.H. to show him the money. As R.H.

withdrew the cash from his wallet, the man pulled a black semi-automatic

handgun from his pocket and pointed it at R.H. The man directed R.H. to give

him the money and R.H.’s wallet. R.H. threw his wallet at the robber, who

walked away while pointing his gun at R.H. Upon reaching a nearby alley, the

robber ran. R.H. and his family drove away, called 911, and attempted to

message the seller.

[4] The family provided to police screen shots of Suarez Gomez’s Facebook page.

Police discovered on the Suarez Gomez Facebook page a photograph of White

and his grandmother on which White was tagged. White lived about thirty to

forty feet away from the robbery scene. R.H. and his parents each identified

White as the robber through a pre-trial photographic array and at trial.

[5] On December 21, 2018, the State charged White with Level 3 felony Robbery.

He was convicted of that offense after a jury trial. On April 14, 2020, the trial

court sentenced White to nine years imprisonment, with two years suspended.

White appeals only his conviction.

Discussion and Decision [6] White contends the evidence is insufficient to support the robbery conviction.

When considering the sufficiency of the evidence supporting a conviction, we

will consider only the probative evidence and the resulting reasonable

inferences supporting the verdict. Abd v. State, 121 N.E.3d 624, 629 (Ind. Ct.

Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 20A-CR-1029 | October 29, 2020 Page 3 of 6 App. 2019), trans. denied. In conducting our review, we will neither reweigh the

evidence nor judge the credibility of witnesses. Id. We will affirm unless no

reasonable factfinder could find the elements of the crime proved beyond a

reasonable doubt. Cook v. State, 143 N.E.3d 1018, 1022 (Ind. Ct. App. 2020),

trans. denied. A conviction may be sustained by the testimony of a single

eyewitness. Greenlee v. State, 463 N.E.2d 1096, 1097 (Ind. 1984).

[7] To convict White of Level 3 felony robbery as charged, the State was required

to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that White, while armed with a deadly

weapon, knowingly or intentionally took property from R.H. or from the

presence of R.H. by using or threatening the use of force or by putting R.H. in

fear. I.C. § 35-42-5-1(a). White does not deny R.H. was robbed. White merely

challenges the sufficiency of the evidence identifying him as the robber.

[8] White contends the identifications of him by R.H. and his parents through the

pre-trial photographic arrays and at trial were “equivocal” because those three

witnesses earlier had viewed the photographs of White on the Suarez Gomez

Facebook account. Appellant’s Brief p. 11. White offers no basis for finding

identifications are equivocal simply because the identifying witnesses earlier

saw a photograph of the same person. Furthermore, White did not object to the

admissibility of the identification evidence; therefore, he has waived the issue.

Whitt v. State, 499 N.E.2d 748, 750 (Ind. Ct. App. 1986) (finding appellant

waived issue of reliability of eyewitness identification testimony by failing to

object at trial).

Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 20A-CR-1029 | October 29, 2020 Page 4 of 6 [9] None of the identification evidence was equivocal. R.H. and his parents, all of

whom observed the robber at close range, readily identified White in court as

the perpetrator. Tr. Vol. II pp. 124, 139, 151. Those three witnesses also

identified White in a photographic array after the robbery, with R.H.’s mother

identifying White “pretty quick” and R.H.’s father “immediately” selecting

White’s photograph. Tr. Vol. II pp. 140, 151, 162. The description of the

robber offered by R.H.’s parents matched White’s physical appearance. Tr.

Vol. II pp. 140-141, 152, 187-188. R.H. testified the robber “match[ed]” the

person depicted as Suarez Gomez on the Facebook account. Tr. Vol. II p. 122.

A reasonable juror could conclude based on this evidence that White was the

person who robbed R.H. See Greenlee, 463 N.E.2d at 1097 (a conviction may be

sustained based on the uncorroborated testimony of a single eyewitness).

[10] Other evidence suggesting White’s guilt buttressed the identification evidence.

The State presented evidence indicating White had lived or stayed at a home

thirty to forty feet from the robbery scene and the robber ran in that direction.

Tr. Vol. II pp. 163, 165, 172. The trial court also admitted, without objection,

State’s Exhibit 1, a screenshot of the Suarez Gomez Facebook page containing

a photograph of White. Tr. Vol. II pp. 175-176.

[11] Given all this evidence, the record conclusively identifies White as the person

who robbed R.H. White’s claims on appeal merely amount to an improper

request to reweigh the evidence. Accordingly, the evidence is sufficient to

support White’s conviction.

Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 20A-CR-1029 | October 29, 2020 Page 5 of 6 [12] The judgment of the trial court is affirmed.

Bailey, J., and Vaidik, J., concur.

Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 20A-CR-1029 | October 29, 2020 Page 6 of 6