Kenyon Sanders v. State of Indiana (mem. dec.)

• Court: Indiana Court of Appeals
• Decided: July 31, 2015
• Docket: 49A05-1412-CR-576
• Status: Published

Opinion

MEMORANDUM DECISION Jul 31 2015, 9:12 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 Frederick Vaiana Gregory F. Zoeller Voyles Zahn & Paul Attorney General of Indiana Indianapolis, Indiana Tyler G. Banks Deputy Attorney General Indianapolis, Indiana

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA

Kenyon Sanders, July 31, 2015

Appellant-Defendant, Court of Appeals Case No. 49A05-1412-CR-576 v. Appeal from the Marion Superior Court. The Honorable Grant W. Hawkins, State of Indiana, Judge. Appellee-Plaintiff. Cause No. 49G05-1311-FB-72264

Shepard, Senior Judge

[1] The State charged that appellant Kenyon Sanders tried to murder Devin Staten

by shooting him three times outside of a strip club in Indianapolis.

[2] At trial, the prosecution presented GPS evidence that Sanders was present at

the club, an electronic scan of Sanders’s personal identification card taken at the

Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 49A05-1412-CR-576 | July 31, 2015 Page 1 of 5 club, and video of the shooting taken from various of the club’s forty security

cameras.

[3] The claim on appeal is insufficient evidence. We affirm.

Issue [4] Sanders raises one issue: whether there is sufficient evidence to prove beyond a

reasonable doubt that he was the person who shot the victim.

Facts and Procedural History [5] The evidence favorable to the jury’s verdict revealed that Devin Staten entered a

strip club in Indianapolis on December 14, 2013, at 12:05 a.m. The club’s

owner had installed over forty cameras, including nine cameras that were

mounted on the outside of the building to cover the parking lot. Another

camera was placed inside the club’s entrance to record customers as they

arrived. All of the cameras transmitted and saved footage to a hard drive. The

footage was time-stamped, enabling us to provide precise times in this

memorandum decision. Customers entering the club were searched for

weapons and required to produce photo identification, which was also recorded

with a scanner.

[6] Kenyon Sanders and Keith Nelson arrived at the club at 12:29 a.m. Sanders

wore camouflage pants and a dark jacket. He was the only person at the club at

that time wearing camouflage pants. Sanders and Nelson showed their picture

IDs to the club’s security staff, who scanned them. Sanders and Nelson left the

Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 49A05-1412-CR-576 | July 31, 2015 Page 2 of 5 club at 1:10 a.m. They got into a car and drove away, returning to the club’s

parking lot at 1:23 a.m. Next, they were involved in an auto accident with

another vehicle in the lot. Nelson exited the car and spoke with the occupants

of the other vehicle for several minutes while Sanders drove the car to another

part of the lot. Sanders walked up to Nelson as the other vehicle left.

[7] Meanwhile, Staten left the club at 1:28 a.m. He passed two men as he walked

to his car. The surveillance system shows him approaching and walking by

Sanders and Nelson. Staten heard one of them say, “Is that him?” Tr. p. 78.

Staten did not think they were referring to him, and he did not look closely at

them. The surveillance system shows that after Staten walked past the men,

Sanders pulled out a handgun and shot at Staten’s back three times. Staten

ducked and ran around a corner of the club, and Sanders and Nelson ran the

other way.

[8] Sanders was wearing a GPS tracking monitor that was monitored by Marion

County Community Corrections. The monitor, affixed to Sanders’ ankle,

indicated that he was at the club when the shooting occurred.

[9] Staten had been shot in his left forearm. He ran to his car and retrieved a

handgun. He walked out of the parking lot but returned at 1:35 a.m. He tried

to reenter the club but was denied entry because he had blood on him. When

the police arrived, Staten stashed his gun under a car before talking with the

officer. An ambulance arrived, and Staten was taken to a hospital. An

evidence technician searched the lot and found three shell casings at the site of

Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 49A05-1412-CR-576 | July 31, 2015 Page 3 of 5 the shooting, as well as Staten’s gun. Subsequent testing revealed that Staten’s

gun could not have fired the rounds that produced the three shell casings.

[10] After reviewing the club’s surveillance recordings, Detective Bradley Millikan

of the Indianapolis Metropolitan Police Department located and arrested

Sanders. Sanders was wearing the same camouflage pants that he wore on the

night of the shooting. Detective Millikan subsequently executed a search

warrant at Sanders’ home and found the jacket Sanders wore on the night of the

shooting, as well as Sanders’ identification card.

1 [11] The State ultimately charged Sanders with attempted murder, a Class A felony, 2 possession of a handgun without a license, a Class A misdemeanor, and

battery, a Class C felony. A jury found Sanders guilty as charged. Sanders then 3 pleaded to being an habitual offender. The court vacated the battery verdict on

double jeopardy grounds and sentenced Sanders to sixty years executed.

Discussion and Decision [12] In reviewing a challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence, Justice Hunter once

wrote that appellate courts have a duty to “prob[e] and sift[ ]” the evidence to

ensure that “the residue of facts warrants a conviction” by supporting each

material allegation of a crime by substantial evidence. Smith v. State, 270 Ind.

1 Ind. Code §§ 35-41-5-1 (1977), 35-42-1-1 (2007). 2 Ind. Code § 35-47-2-1 (2012). 3 Ind. Code § 35-50-2-8 (2005).

Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 49A05-1412-CR-576 | July 31, 2015 Page 4 of 5 479, 481, 386 N.E.2d 1193, 1195 (Ind. 1979). More recently, the Indiana

Supreme Court restated this standard as requiring affirmance unless no

reasonable trier of fact could have found each of the elements of a crime proven

beyond a reasonable doubt. Smith v. State, 8 N.E.3d 668, 679 (Ind. 2014).

[13] Sanders does not dispute that he was at the club on December 14, 2013. He

says that there was not enough evidence to establish that he was the person who

shot the victim.

[14] There surely must be very few attempted murder trials in which the prosecution

presents GPS evidence, ID card scans, and video of the defendant pulling the

trigger. We conclude that a reasonable jury could find this proof of guilt

beyond a reasonable doubt.

[15] For the foregoing reasons, we affirm the judgment of the trial court.

[16] Affirmed.

Kirsch, J., and Brown, J., concur.

Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 49A05-1412-CR-576 | July 31, 2015 Page 5 of 5