Moyad M. Dannon v. State of Indiana (mem. dec.)

• Court: Indiana Court of Appeals
• Decided: February 2, 2018
• Docket: 49A05-1709-CR-2030
• Status: Published

Opinion

MEMORANDUM DECISION FILED Pursuant to Ind. Appellate Rule 65(D), Feb 02 2018, 5:46 am

this Memorandum Decision shall not be CLERK Indiana Supreme Court regarded as precedent or cited before any Court of Appeals 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 Timothy J. Burns Curtis T. Hill, Jr. Indianapolis, Indiana Attorney General of Indiana

Ellen H. Meilaender Supervising Deputy Attorney General Indianapolis, Indiana

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA

Moyad M. Dannon, February 2, 2018 Appellant-Defendant, Court of Appeals Case No. 49A05-1709-CR-2030 v. Appeal from the Marion Superior Court State of Indiana, The Honorable David Certo, Judge Appellee-Plaintiff The Honorable Dylan Vigh, Judge Pro Tem Trial Court Cause No. 49G12-1608-CM-31277

Altice, Judge.

Case Summary Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 49A05-1709-CR-2030 | February 2, 2018 Page 1 of 4 [1] Moyad Dannon appeals his conviction for conversion, a Class A misdemeanor.

He claims that the State failed to present sufficient evidence regarding his

intent.

[2] We affirm.

Facts & Procedural History

[3] On the evening of April 26, 2016, Dannon entered the Von Maur store at

Castleton Mall with his brother and two other men. The group began browsing

in the men’s concept department, which is a high theft area, and caught the

attention of Donald Fague, the store’s loss prevention manager. Fague notified

an associate who then followed the group on the store’s closed-circuit camera

system.

[4] Dannon and one of his companions approached a table display that included

white Lacoste baseball hats, which were exactly like the one Dannon was

wearing except that his was old and dingy. His companion selected one of the

new hats and discretely pulled off the price tag. Dannon then removed his hat

from his head, folded it like the new one, and covertly traded it for the new one.

Dannon placed the new hat on his head, while his companion put the old one

back on the display table. They then walked away and rejoined the others. As

the group walked through the store for several more minutes, Dannon stopped

to look at himself in multiple mirrors while playing with his hair and adjusting

the hat. He eventually passed all points of payment and left the store with the

new hat on his head.

Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 49A05-1709-CR-2030 | February 2, 2018 Page 2 of 4 [5] Following a bench trial and the court’s review of the store’s surveillance video,

Dannon was convicted of Class A misdemeanor conversion. On August 8,

2017, the trial court sentenced him to 180 days in jail and suspended the entire

sentence. The court placed Dannon on nonreporting probation, which would

terminate upon successful completion of a theft class.

Discussion & Decision

[6] On appeal, Dannon argues that the State presented insufficient evidence to

support his conviction. Dannon does not dispute that he exerted unauthorized

control over the store’s hat. Relying on his own testimony, Dannon claims

only that he did not knowingly or intentionally do so because he believed the

hat was his own. In other words, Dannon claims that he mistakenly confused

the two hats and wore the wrong one out of the store.

[7] When we consider a challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence, we neither

reweigh the evidence nor assess the credibility of the witnesses. Suggs v. State,

51 N.E.3d 1190, 1193 (Ind. 2016). Instead, we consider only the evidence and

reasonable inferences supporting the conviction. Id. We will affirm if there is

probative evidence from which a reasonable trier of fact could have found the

defendant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. Id.

[8] We reject Dannon’s blatant invitation to reweigh the evidence and to judge his

credibility. The State presented ample evidence to establish that Dannon

knowingly or intentionally exerted unauthorized control over Von Maur’s

property when he wore the hat out of the store. See Ind. Code § 35-43-4-3(a)

Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 49A05-1709-CR-2030 | February 2, 2018 Page 3 of 4 (defining Class A misdemeanor conversion). The surveillance video shows the

surreptitious behavior of both Dannon and his companion, who removed the

price tag. Notably, Dannon took off his old, stained hat, folded it like the new

one, and then carefully and secretly exchanged his hat for the new one.

Thereafter, on more than one occasion, Dannon looked at himself in a mirror

and adjusted the unstained, brand new hat on his head before leaving the store

without paying for it.

[9] Dannon’s intent to exert unauthorized control over the hat can be reasonably

inferred from the video evidence, and the trial court was not required to credit

Dannon’s contrary testimony. See Moore v. State, 27 N.E.3d 749, 755-56 (Ind.

2015) (it is the trier of fact’s role to resolve conflicts in the evidence and to

decide whether to believe or disbelieve witnesses). Indeed, the trial court

indicated that it reviewed the video several times and that it “felt the video was

dispositive of the issue.” Transcript at 69. We agree with the trial court.

[10] Judgment affirmed.

May, J. and Vaidik, C.J., concur.

Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 49A05-1709-CR-2030 | February 2, 2018 Page 4 of 4