Malik Gardner v. State of Indiana (mem. dec.)

• Court: Indiana Court of Appeals
• Decided: January 14, 2020
• Docket: 19A-CR-798
• 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 Jan 14 2020, 9:07 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 Donald J. Berger Curtis T. Hill, Jr. Law Office of Donald J. Berger Attorney General of Indiana South Bend, Indiana Marjorie Lawyer-Smith Deputy Attorney General Indianapolis, Indiana

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA

Malik Gardner, January 14, 2020 Appellant-Defendant, Court of Appeals Case No. 19A-CR-798 v. Appeal from the St. Joseph Superior Court State of Indiana, The Honorable John Marnocha, Appellee-Plaintiff. Judge Trial Court Cause Nos. 71D02-1808-F6-802 71D02-1806-F6-532

Bradford, Chief Judge.

Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 19A-CR-798| January 14, 2020 Page 1 of 5 Case Summary [1] In May of 2017, Malik Gardner purchased marijuana using counterfeit fifty-

dollar bills. In June of 2018, the State charged Gardner with two counts of

Level 6 felony counterfeiting and one count of Class A misdemeanor resisting

law enforcement. In December of 2018, Gardner was found guilty of

counterfeiting and resisting law enforcement. Gardner contends that the State

produced insufficient evidence to sustain his counterfeiting conviction. We

affirm.

Facts and Procedural History [2] On May 24, 2017, Gardner met Carlton Gary to purchase marijuana in St.

Joseph County. In exchange for the marijuana, Gardner gave Gary what

appeared to be two folded fifty-dollar bills. Sometime thereafter, Gary

attempted to use one of the fifty-dollar bills to make a purchase from a gas

station. The clerk noticed that the bill was marked “For Motion Picture Use

Only,” and after refusing to return the bill to Gary, the clerk and Gary agreed

that Gary would call law enforcement to report the counterfeit bill. Tr. p. 13.

When the police officer arrived, Gary informed him that he had received the

counterfeit bills from Gardner after selling him a pair of shoes. Later that day,

Gardner was apprehended by police with multiple bills in his possession that

were also labeled “For Motion Picture Use Only.” Tr. p. 55.

Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 19A-CR-798| January 14, 2020 Page 2 of 5 [3] On June 12, 2018, the State charged Gardner with two counts of Level 6 felony

counterfeiting and one count of Class A misdemeanor resisting law

enforcement. On December 6, 2018, a jury trial was held, after which Gardner

was found guilty of one count of counterfeiting and one count of resisting law

enforcement. On March 27, 2019, the trial court sentenced Gardner to thirty

months of incarceration with twelve suspended to probation.

Discussion and Decision [4] Gardner contends that the State produced insufficient evidence to sustain his

counterfeiting conviction. When reviewing the sufficiency of evidence to

support a conviction, we consider only probative evidence and reasonable

inferences supporting the factfinder’s decision. Young v. State, 973 N.E.2d 1225,

1226 (Ind. Ct. App. 2012), trans. denied. It is the role of the factfinder, not ours,

to assess witness credibility and weigh the evidence. Id. We will affirm a

conviction unless “no reasonable fact-finder could find the elements of the

crime proven beyond a reasonable doubt.” Id. To convict Gardner of Level 6

felony counterfeiting, the State was required to prove that Gardner knowingly

or intentionally made or uttered a written instrument in such a manner that it

purports to have been made by authority of one who did not give authority.

Ind. Code § 35-43-5-2(a)(1)(D).1 “Intent is a mental state, and the trier of fact

1 Indiana Code section 35-41-2-2 dictates that

Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 19A-CR-798| January 14, 2020 Page 3 of 5 often must infer its existence from surrounding circumstances when

determining whether the requisite intent exists.” Goodner v. State, 685 N.E.2d

1058, 1062 (Ind. 1997).

[5] Here, Gardner argues that the State’s evidence is insufficient because it is based

on the testimony of Gary, who not only lied to police about what he sold

Gardner but also because he admitted to using illegal substances. This

argument, however, is nothing more than an invitation to reweigh the evidence

and judge witness credibility, which we will not do. Young, 973 N.E.2d at 1226.

That said, the evidence is otherwise sufficient to allow a reasonable factfinder to

find that Gardner committed counterfeiting. The record indicates that Gardner

purchased marijuana from Gary using what he purported to be two folded fifty-

dollar bills, which were subsequently discovered to be marked with a “For

Motion Picture Only” inscription. The record also indicates that after fleeing

from police, Gardner was apprehended with additional bills on his person

matching the serial numbers and “For Motion Picture Only” inscription as the

bills Gardner gave to Gary. Gardner has failed to establish that the State

produced insufficient evidence to sustain his conviction for Level 6 felony

counterfeiting.

(a) A person engages in conduct “intentionally” if, when he engages in the conduct, it is his conscious objective to do so. (b) A person engages in conduct “knowingly” if, when he engages in the conduct, he is aware of a high probability that he is doing so.

Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 19A-CR-798| January 14, 2020 Page 4 of 5 [6] The judgment of the trial court is affirmed.

Robb, J., and Altice, J., concur.

Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 19A-CR-798| January 14, 2020 Page 5 of 5