Katie M. Wilson v. State of Indiana (mem. dec.)

• Court: Indiana Court of Appeals
• Decided: February 27, 2017
• Docket: 82A01-1607-CR-1714
• Status: Published

Opinion

MEMORANDUM DECISION FILED Feb 27 2017, 11:58 am Pursuant to Ind. Appellate Rule 65(D), CLERK this Memorandum Decision shall not be Indiana Supreme Court Court of Appeals regarded as precedent or cited before any and Tax Court

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 E. Ripstra Curtis T. Hill, Jr. Ripstra Law Office Attorney General of Indiana Jasper, Indiana Tyler G. Banks Deputy Attorney General Indianapolis, Indiana

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA

Katie M. Wilson, February 27, 2017 Appellant-Defendant, Court of Appeals Case No. 82A01-1607-CR-1714 v. Appeal from the Vanderburgh Superior Court State of Indiana, The Honorable Sheila M. Appellee-Plaintiff. Corcoran, Magistrate Trial Court Cause No. 82D03-1507-CM-3886

Najam, Judge.

Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 82A01-1607-CR-1714 | February 27, 2017 Page 1 of 4 Statement of the Case [1] Katie M. Wilson appeals her conviction for theft, as a Class A misdemeanor,

following a bench trial. Wilson presents a single issue for our review, namely,

whether the State presented sufficient evidence to support her conviction. We

affirm.

Facts and Procedural History [2] On July 2, 2015, loss prevention officer Joshua Price was working at a Walmart

store located in Evansville when he observed two women placing unpurchased

merchandise into a brown bag. Price followed the women and observed them

place additional unpurchased merchandise into the bag. Price then watched as

the women left the store with the merchandise without paying for any of it.

Price was “not able to get up there before they hit the parking lot to actually

stop them,” so he called the Evansville Police Department “and informed them

what [he] had observed.” Tr. at 11. Price “followed [the two women] to the

vehicle that they got into,” which he described as a red Hyundai Sonata, and he

gave dispatch the license plate number. Id. Price further described that he saw

that vehicle being driven into a nearby Best Buy parking lot, but he then lost

sight of the vehicle.

[3] Evansville Police Department (“EPD”) Detective Tony Mayhew was in the

area at the time and found the red Sonata with the license plate given by

dispatch parked outside a department store located near Best Buy. Detective

Mayhew saw two women get out of the car and enter Gordman’s department

Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 82A01-1607-CR-1714 | February 27, 2017 Page 2 of 4 store, and he told two other EPD officers what he had observed. After those

officers arrived at the scene, they approached the women, who identified

themselves as Wilson and Ja’La Lyle. The officers contacted Price, who came

to the scene and identified Wilson and Lyle as the shoplifters he had seen at

Walmart. The officers placed Wilson and Lyle under arrest. Detective

Mayhew observed items of clothing with price tags on them in the backseat of

the Sonata. Detective Mayhew obtained a search warrant for the car and

recovered several items that had been stolen from Walmart.

[4] The State charged Wilson with theft, as a Class A misdemeanor. After a bench

trial, the trial court found Wilson guilty as charged and entered judgment and

sentence accordingly. This appeal ensued.

Discussion and Decision [5] Wilson contends that the State failed to present sufficient evidence to support

her conviction for theft. In our review of such claims, “we consider only the

evidence and reasonable inferences most favorable to the conviction[,] neither

reweighing evidence nor reassessing witness credibility.” Griffith v. State, 59

N.E.3d 947, 958 (Ind. 2016). “We affirm the judgment unless no reasonable

factfinder could find the defendant guilty.” Id.

[6] To prove that Wilson committed Class A misdemeanor theft, the State was

required to show that she 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. Ind. Code § 35-43-4-2(a) (2017). At trial, Price

Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 82A01-1607-CR-1714 | February 27, 2017 Page 3 of 4 testified that he saw Wilson and Lyle place clothing items in a brown bag and

leave the Walmart without paying for anything. After the EPD officers

apprehended Wilson and Lyle, Price identified them as the women he had seen

shoplift items from Walmart. And after Wilson’s arrest, Detective Mayhew

found items stolen from Walmart in the backseat of the car in which Wilson

and Lyle had been driving.

[7] On appeal, Wilson maintains that the evidence is insufficient to support her

conviction because “the brown bag/purse [that] Price [had] identified [as

having been the receptacle for the stolen clothing items] was not recovered; the

brown purse was carried by Lyle, not [Wilson]; and no video tape was

preserved by Wal[mart].” Appellant’s Br. At 9. But those contentions amount

to nothing more than a request that we reweigh the evidence, which we will not

do. We hold that the State presented sufficient evidence to support Wilson’s

theft conviction.

[8] Affirmed.

Bailey, J., and May, J., concur.

Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 82A01-1607-CR-1714 | February 27, 2017 Page 4 of 4