Phillip E. Beeks v. State of Indiana (mem. dec.)

• Court: Indiana Court of Appeals
• Decided: May 22, 2020
• Docket: 18A-CR-1788
• 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 May 22 2020, 6:54 am

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

ATTORNEY FOR APPELLANT ATTORNEY FOR APPELLEE William T. Myers Benjamin J. Shoptaw Whitehurst & Myers Law Deputy Attorney General Marion, Indiana Indianapolis, Indiana

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA

Phillip E. Beeks, May 22, 2020 Appellant-Defendant, Court of Appeals Case No. 18A-CR-1788 v. Appeal from the Huntington Circuit Court State of Indiana, The Honorable Jamie M. Groves, Appellee-Plaintiff. Judge Trial Court Cause No. 35C01-1701-F2-23

Barnes, Senior Judge.

Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 18A-CR-1788 | May 22, 2020 Page 1 of 6 Statement of the Case 1 [1] Phillip Beeks appeals his conviction of burglary, a Level 4 felony. We affirm.

Issue [2] Beeks presents one issue for our review: whether the evidence was sufficient to

support his conviction of burglary.

Facts and Procedural History [3] The facts most favorable to the verdict indicate that, on January 25, 2017,

William Daniels, Jr. noticed a silver car drive down the street multiple times.

As Daniels watched, a man in a blue ski mask emerged from the other side of

the barn on his neighbor’s property. The silver car came back down the street,

picked up the man, and left. Shortly thereafter, the car returned, and the man

in the ski mask got out. The car left, and the man walked to the front of the

neighbor’s house, shattered a window, and climbed through the window into

the house. Daniels called 911.

[4] When Officer McCutcheon arrived on the scene, neighbors informed him that

the man had come out of the house and gone down a hill into the woods near

the house. The officer drove down the hill and saw a man in the woods with a

silver handgun in his hand. Officer McCutcheon exited his car and instructed

the man to show his hands. The man complied with the officer’s instructions,

1 Ind. Code § 35-43-2-1 (2014).

Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 18A-CR-1788 | May 22, 2020 Page 2 of 6 but his hands were empty. The officer identified the man as Phillip Beeks from

his Indiana ID card, and Daniels identified Beeks as the man he saw break into

his neighbor’s home. Officers later searched the area of the woods where Beeks

had been standing and found the handgun. In addition, Beeks’ hand was

bleeding, and he had a blue ski mask with him. Glass fragments from Beeks’

shoes, jeans, ski mask, and jacket were found to match glass shards collected

from the broken window of the home.

[5] Based on this incident, Beeks was charged with burglary, a Level 2 felony;

burglary, a Level 4 felony; and possession of a handgun without a license, a 2 3 Level 5 felony. The State also alleged that Beeks was an habitual offender.

Prior to trial, the court granted the State’s motion to dismiss the charge of

burglary as a Level 2 felony.

[6] At trial, Wayne Powell, the owner of the home, testified that he kept a handgun

in a holster on top of a gun safe in the front room of his home. When he

returned home following this incident, the holster was empty, and the gun was

missing. He identified the gun officers found in the woods as his missing gun.

The jury convicted Beeks of the two charges, and he admitted to a prior

conviction, which elevated his handgun possession conviction to the Level 5

2 Ind. Code § 35-47-2-1 (2014). 3 Ind. Code § 35-50-2-8 (2015).

Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 18A-CR-1788 | May 22, 2020 Page 3 of 6 felony. Beeks also admitted to being an habitual offender. The court sentenced

Beeks to an aggregate term of thirty years. Beeks now appeals.

Discussion and Decision [7] When we review a challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence, we neither

reweigh the evidence nor judge the credibility of the witnesses. Sandleben v.

State, 29 N.E.3d 126, 131 (Ind. Ct. App. 2015), trans. denied. Instead, we

consider only the evidence most favorable to the verdict and any reasonable

inferences drawn therefrom. Id. If there is substantial evidence of probative

value from which a reasonable fact-finder could have found the defendant

guilty beyond a reasonable doubt, the verdict will not be disturbed. Labarr v.

State, 36 N.E.3d 501, 502 (Ind. Ct. App. 2015). It is not necessary that the

evidence overcome every reasonable hypothesis of innocence. Tongate v. State,

954 N.E.2d 494, 497 (Ind. Ct. App. 2011), trans. denied.

[8] To convict Beeks of Level 4 felony burglary, the State needed to prove that he:

(1) broke and entered into the dwelling of another (2) with the intent to commit

a felony or theft inside. See Ind. Code § 35-43-2-1(1). Beeks contends the

State’s evidence that he intended to commit a theft inside the Powell residence 4 was insufficient.

4 Beeks does not challenge his handgun conviction.

Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 18A-CR-1788 | May 22, 2020 Page 4 of 6 [9] Because “[b]urglars rarely announce their intentions at the moment of entry,”

“a burglar’s intent to commit a specific felony at the time of the breaking and

entering may be inferred from the circumstances.” Baker v. State, 968 N.E.2d

227, 229-30 (Ind. 2012) (citations and quotations omitted). Hence, a burglary

conviction may be sustained by circumstantial evidence alone. Id. at 230.

[10] In support of his argument, Beeks cites two Indiana Supreme Court cases;

however, these cases are inapposite to his case. In Justice v. State, 530 N.E.2d

295 (Ind. 1988), the court determined the evidence was insufficient to establish

the defendant’s intent to commit theft because it showed he entered the victim’s

home illegally, fled when the victim recognized him, and had covered his hands

with socks but did not show that he touched, disturbed, approached, or took

any property. Likewise, in Freshwater v. State, 853 N.E.2d 941 (Ind. 2006), the

court found the evidence of intent to commit theft insufficient where the

defendant broke into a business at night, attempted to enter the building at

several points, and fled immediately following the sounding of the alarm but

took nothing.

[11] Here, in contrast, the evidence showed that Daniels saw Beeks shatter the

window of Powell’s home and enter the home through the broken window.

Soon thereafter, Officer McCutcheon saw Beeks in the woods holding a silver

handgun, which was found in that same area after Beeks’ arrest. Powell

testified at trial that, after Beeks broke into his house, the gun he kept in a

holster on top of a gun safe was missing. Powell also identified the gun found

in the woods as his missing gun. The evidence not only supports the inference

Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 18A-CR-1788 | May 22, 2020 Page 5 of 6 that Beeks intended to commit theft when he broke and entered Powell’s home

but also shows that Beeks did in fact commit theft.

Conclusion [12] For the reasons stated, we conclude the evidence was sufficient to show Beeks’

intent to commit theft when he broke into the residence.

[13] Affirmed.

Baker, J., and May, J., concur.

Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 18A-CR-1788 | May 22, 2020 Page 6 of 6