Kevin James Rent v. State of Indiana (mem. dec.)

• Court: Indiana Court of Appeals
• Decided: July 30, 2018
• Docket: 49A04-1712-CR-2914
• Status: Published

Opinion

MEMORANDUM DECISION Pursuant to Ind. Appellate Rule 65(D), this Memorandum Decision shall not be regarded as precedent or cited before any FILED court except for the purpose of establishing Jul 30 2018, 10:16 am

the defense of res judicata, collateral CLERK estoppel, or the law of the case. Indiana Supreme Court Court of Appeals and Tax Court

ATTORNEY FOR APPELLANT ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE Michael G. Moore Curtis T. Hill, Jr. Indianapolis, Indiana Attorney General of Indiana

Lee M. Stoy, Jr. Deputy Attorney General Indianapolis, Indiana

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA

Kevin James Rent, July 30, 2018 Appellant-Defendant, Court of Appeals Case No. 49A04-1712-CR-2914 v. Appeal from the Marion Superior Court State of Indiana, The Honorable Shatrese M. Appellee-Plaintiff. Flowers, Judge Trial Court Cause No. 49G20-1604-F2-12810

Bradford, Judge.

Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 49A04-1712-CR-2914 | July 30, 2018 Page 1 of 8 Case Summary [1] On April 1, 2016, members of the Indianapolis Metropolitan Police

Department (“IMPD”) executed a search warrant on a home located in

Indianapolis. Upon doing so, the officers recovered large amounts of cocaine

and marijuana. They also recovered multiple other items suggesting that the

drugs were being distributed from the home. Kevin James Rent was arrested at

the scene. He was subsequently charged with and found guilty of numerous

drug-related charges. On appeal, Rent contends that the evidence is insufficient

to sustain his convictions. Concluding otherwise, we affirm.

Facts and Procedural History [2] On April 1, 2016, IMPD SWAT and narcotics officers executed a search

warrant on a home located on Washington Boulevard in Indianapolis. As they

approached the home, officers noticed the “overpowering odor of raw

marijuana” emanating from inside. Tr. Vol. III, p. 40. Upon entering the

home, Lieutenant Charles Deblaso observed Anthony Ector standing at the

bottom of a stairwell holding an AK-style rifle. Instead of obeying Lieutenant

Deblaso’s instruction to drop the weapon, Ector threw it towards a nearby

couch and attempted to run. He was almost immediately secured by the

officers and taken into custody. Soon after Ector was secured, the officers came

into contact with Rent and Charles Polk. Officers secured the home and took

Rent and Polk into custody before conducting their search.

Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 49A04-1712-CR-2914 | July 30, 2018 Page 2 of 8 [3] While searching the home, officers found (1) large quantities of both marijuana

and cocaine; (2) items commonly used in the division and packaging of drugs

for sale; (3) two firearms; and (4) numerous items containing Rent, Polk, and

Ector’s names and/or images. In the living room, the first room one enters

through the front door, officers found a grocery bag containing 146.6 grams of

cocaine sitting in plain view on the couch1 and a Glock handgun with an

extended magazine sticking up from between the couch cushions. In addition,

officers found “marijuana roaches” and Rent’s driver’s license sitting on a

coffee table that was placed “right in front of the couch.” Tr. Vol. III, pp. 220,

221. Officers also recovered the rifle that Ector threw when Lieutenant Deblaso

entered the home and found a television displaying the live feed of images from

various surveillance cameras set up in and around the home.

[4] In the kitchen, officers found a duffle bag containing several bags of marijuana

on the counter and a trash bag containing a brick of marijuana in a cabinet.

The total weight of the marijuana was 6794.83 grams. 2 Officers also found

Dormin, an over-the-counter sleep aid commonly used to cut heroin, and

baking soda.3 In yet another cabinet, Officers found a box containing Polk’s

resume, pictures of Polk and Ector, and a credit card belonging to Rent.

Officers also found two scales, one having cocaine residue on it and the other

1 The cocaine was divided into smaller packages inside the grocery bag. 2 6794.83 grams equals approximately 14.98 pounds. 3 Baking soda is commonly used to cut cocaine.

Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 49A04-1712-CR-2914 | July 30, 2018 Page 3 of 8 flakes of marijuana. Finally, the stove was pushed up against the back door,

blocking access to the door.

[5] Officers found two more scales in the dining room. One of these scales had

cocaine and heroin residue on it and the other marijuana. Officers also found a

heat sealer and heat sealing bags. In addition, rather than being set up as a

place where one might eat meals, the dining room was set up like “a weight

room area” with a weight bench and a punching bag. Tr. Vol. III, p. 27.

[6] Officers found very few personal belongings in the rest of the home. Only one

bedroom contained a bed. A laptop was found in a different bedroom. The

closets had little to nothing in them and only a scarce amount of clothing was

found in the home. The contents of the home matched those commonly found

in a home being used as a “trap house.”4 Tr. Vol. IV, p. 87.

[7] Upon searching Rent’s person, officers found $1120 in his pocket, including

fifty-two $20 bills. They also found a key to the home. Officers recovered a

small amount of cocaine from inside Rent’s vehicle, which was parked close to

the home and blocked in the driveway by Ector’s vehicle.

4 A trap house is not lived in but is commonly used to facilitate the manufacture, distribution, and use of illegal drugs. See Tr. Vol. III, p. 37; Tr. Vol. IV, pp. 87–88. Some indictors of a trap house are a lack of personal items, such as clothing and furniture; lack of food in the refrigerator; the presence of security cameras; and iron security or barricaded doors, leaving only one way in or out of the home. See Tr. Vol. III, p. 37; Tr. Vol. IV, pp. 87–89. It is common for multiple drug dealers to work out of a trap house and only those dealers typically have keys to the home. See Tr. Vol. IV, pp. 87–89.

Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 49A04-1712-CR-2914 | July 30, 2018 Page 4 of 8 [8] On April 5, 2016, the State charged Rent with Count I – Level 2 felony dealing

in cocaine, Count II – Level 3 felony possession of cocaine, Count III – Level 4

felony unlawful possession of a firearm by a serious violent felon, Count IV –

Level 5 felony dealing in marijuana, Count V – Level 6 felony possession of

marijuana, and Count VI – Level 5 felony possession of a narcotic drug, i.e.,

heroin. Following a jury trial, Rent was found guilty as charged. The trial

court subsequently vacated Rent’s convictions under Counts II and V and

downgraded his conviction in Count VI to a Level 6 felony. The trial court

imposed an aggregate twenty-year sentence with eighteen years executed and

two years suspended to probation.

Discussion and Decision [9] In challenging his convictions, Rent contends that the evidence is insufficient to

prove that he possessed the contraband at issue.

When reviewing the sufficiency of the evidence to support a conviction, appellate courts must consider only the probative evidence and reasonable inferences supporting the verdict. It is the fact-finder’s role, not that of appellate courts, to assess witness credibility and weigh the evidence to determine whether it is sufficient to support a conviction. To preserve this structure, when appellate courts are confronted with conflicting evidence, they must consider it most favorably to the trial court’s ruling. Appellate courts affirm the conviction unless no reasonable fact- finder could find the elements of the crime proven beyond a reasonable doubt. It is therefore not necessary that the evidence overcome every reasonable hypothesis of innocence. The evidence is sufficient if an inference may reasonably be drawn from it to support the verdict. Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 49A04-1712-CR-2914 | July 30, 2018 Page 5 of 8 Drane v. State, 867 N.E.2d 144, 146–47 (Ind. 2007) (citations, emphasis, and

quotations omitted). “In essence, we assess only whether the verdict could be

reached based on reasonable inferences that may be drawn from the evidence

presented.” Baker v. State, 968 N.E.2d 227, 229 (Ind. 2012) (emphasis in

original).

[10] The State prosecuted its case against Rent under the theory of constructive

possession. “A defendant is in the constructive possession of [contraband]

when the State shows that the defendant has both (i) the intent to maintain

dominion and control over the [contraband] and (ii) the capability to maintain

dominion and control over the [contraband].” Gee v. State, 810 N.E.2d 338, 340

(Ind. 2004) (citing Lampkins v. State, 682 N.E.2d 1268, 1275 (Ind. 1997)). In

this case, Rent concedes that he had the capability to maintain dominion and

control over the contraband. He argues, however, that the State failed to prove

the intent prong of constructive possession.

[11] “When a defendant’s possession of the premises on which drugs are found is

not exclusive, then the inference of intent to maintain dominion and control

over the drugs ‘must be supported by additional circumstances pointing to the

defendant’s knowledge of the nature of the controlled substances and their

presence.’” Id. at 341 (quoting Lampkins, 682 N.E.2d at 1275). A non-exclusive

list of these “additional circumstances” include: “(1) incriminating statements

made by the defendant, (2) attempted flight or furtive gestures, (3) location of

substances like drugs in settings that suggest manufacturing, (4) proximity of the

contraband to the defendant, (5) location of the contraband within the

Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 49A04-1712-CR-2914 | July 30, 2018 Page 6 of 8 defendant’s plain view, and (6) the mingling of the contraband with other items

owned by the defendant.” Id. at 341, 344 (citing Henderson v. State, 715 N.E.2d

833, 836 (Ind. 1999)).

[12] The evidence presented by the State supports the inference that Rent had

knowledge of the nature and presence of the contraband. The home had the

characteristics of a trap house, i.e., a house that is used for the distribution of

illegal drugs. Additionally, the vast majority of the contraband was in plain

view and Rent’s possessions were found in close proximity to the contraband.

The smell of raw marijuana was also strong within the home and scales used to

weigh the drugs for sale were found in numerous rooms. The evidence further

revealed that Rent possessed a large amount of cash, much of which was $20

bills. The State presented evidence that it is common for drug dealers to have a

large number of $20 bills because many drugs are commonly packaged for sale

in $20 increments. In addition, when initially confronted by the officers, Rent

indicated that “he was just stopping by.” Tr. Vol. III, p. 44. The evidence,

however, indicated otherwise as he had a key to the home and his vehicle was

parked close to the home and was blocked by another vehicle. Rent’s

possession of a key suggests that he was dealing drugs from the home as only a

dealer, and not an individual simply purchasing drugs, would typically have a

key to the home.

[13] The State’s evidence supports the inference that Rent had knowledge of the

nature and presence of the weapon and the drugs found within the home.

Rent’s claim to the contrary effectively amounts to an invitation to reweigh the

Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 49A04-1712-CR-2914 | July 30, 2018 Page 7 of 8 evidence, which we will not do. See Stewart v. State, 768 N.E.2d 433, 435 (Ind.

2002) (providing that upon review, appellate courts do not reweigh the evidence

or assess the credibility of the witnesses).

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

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

Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 49A04-1712-CR-2914 | July 30, 2018 Page 8 of 8