Leandale Glenn v. State of Indiana (mem. dec.)

Opinion

MEMORANDUM DECISION Pursuant to Ind. Appellate Rule 65(D), this Memorandum Decision shall not be FILED regarded as precedent or cited before any Jun 10 2016, 8:59 am

court except for the purpose of establishing CLERK Indiana Supreme Court the defense of res judicata, collateral Court of Appeals and Tax Court estoppel, or the law of the case.

ATTORNEY FOR APPELLANT ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE Kevin Wild Gregory F. Zoeller Indianapolis, Indiana Attorney General of Indiana Larry D. Allen Deputy Attorney General Indianapolis, Indiana

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA

Leandale Glenn, June 10, 2016 Appellant-Defendant, Court of Appeals Case No. 49A05-1512-CR-2105 v. Appeal from the Marion Superior Court State of Indiana, The Honorable Barbara Crawford, Appellee-Plaintiff. Judge Trial Court Cause No. 49G09-1412-F6-55420

Robb, Judge.

Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 49A05-1512-CR-2105 | June 10, 2016 Page 1 of 5 Case Summary and Issue [1] Following a bench trial, Leandale Glenn was convicted of theft as a Level 6

felony. Glenn appeals, raising the sole issue of whether the evidence is

sufficient to support his conviction. Concluding the evidence is sufficient, we

affirm.

Facts and Procedural History [2] On December 17, 2014, a Marsh Supermarket loss prevention officer (“LPO”)

was monitoring a security camera feed when he observed Glenn select a jar of

moonshine and remove the jar’s lid in the middle of the liquor section. Glenn

consumed about three-quarters of the moonshine and returned the jar to the

shelf. He then walked to the front of the store, passed the cash registers, and

entered the restroom. The LPO followed Glenn into the restroom to confront

him about the moonshine. Glenn smelled of alcohol and appeared to be

intoxicated. Glenn admitted he drank the moonshine and could not pay for it,

so the LPO called the police.

[3] The State charged Glenn with theft with a prior conviction, a Level 6 felony.

At the conclusion of a bench trial, the trial court found Glenn guilty as charged.

The trial court sentenced Glenn to 545 days, with 180 days served in

community corrections and 365 days suspended to probation. This appeal

followed.

Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 49A05-1512-CR-2105 | June 10, 2016 Page 2 of 5 Discussion and Decision I. Standard of Review [4] In reviewing the sufficiency of the evidence to support a conviction, we neither

reweigh the evidence nor judge the credibility of witnesses. Willis v. State, 27

N.E.3d 1065, 1066 (Ind. 2015). We consider only the evidence supporting the

judgment and any reasonable inferences drawn therefrom. Id. We will affirm

the conviction “if there is substantial evidence of probative value supporting

each element of the crime from which a reasonable trier of fact could have

found the defendant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.” Walker v. State, 998

N.E.2d 724, 726 (Ind. 2013) (citation omitted). A theft conviction may be

sustained by circumstantial evidence alone “if that circumstantial evidence

supports a reasonable inference of guilt.” Hayworth v. State, 798 N.E.2d 503,

507 (Ind. Ct. App. 2003).

II. Sufficiency of Evidence [5] A person commits theft when he “knowingly or intentionally exerts

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). The

offense is a Level 6 felony if the person has a prior unrelated conviction for theft

or criminal conversion. Ind. Code § 35-43-4-2(a)(1)(C). Glenn argues the

evidence is insufficient to support his conviction because the State failed to

prove the moonshine was the property of another or that his control over it was

unauthorized. We disagree.

Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 49A05-1512-CR-2105 | June 10, 2016 Page 3 of 5 [6] Glenn argues the State failed to establish the moonshine was the property of

another because there was no evidence disproving the possibility that Glenn

carried the jar into the store. We decline his invitation to reweigh the evidence.

The LPO testified he observed Glenn remove the jar of moonshine from a shelf

inside the store and then return the jar to the shelf once he consumed most of its

contents. This testimony is sufficient evidence from which the trial court could

reasonably infer the moonshine belonged to Marsh.

[7] Glenn further argues the State failed to prove his control was unauthorized

because the LPO “could not possibly have known” whether any of Marsh’s

other employees gave Glenn permission to drink the moonshine. Brief of

Appellant at 10. “Unauthorized” control refers to control that is “without the

other person’s consent” or “in a manner or to an extent other than that to which

the other person has consented.” Ind. Code § 35-43-4-1(b)(1), (2). The LPO

observed Glenn drink the moonshine and then return the mostly empty jar to

the shelf. When the LPO confronted Glenn, Glenn admitted he drank the

moonshine and stated he could not pay for it. At trial, the LPO recounted this

sequence of events and testified Glenn consumed the moonshine without

Marsh’s permission. The LPO’s testimony is sufficient evidence from which

the trial court could reasonably infer Glenn’s control of the moonshine was

“unauthorized.” Glenn’s statement that he could not pay for the moonshine

would make no sense if he had acted with the store’s permission, and it is

reasonable to infer Marsh did not give Glenn permission to guzzle the

moonshine in the middle of the liquor section without paying for it. Glenn’s

Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 49A05-1512-CR-2105 | June 10, 2016 Page 4 of 5 argument to the contrary is again nothing more than a request for this court to

reweigh the evidence.

Conclusion [8] The evidence is sufficient to support Glenn’s conviction for theft. We therefore

[9] Affirmed.

Najam, J., and Crone, J., concur.

Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 49A05-1512-CR-2105 | June 10, 2016 Page 5 of 5