MEMORANDUM DECISION Pursuant to Ind. Appellate Rule 65(D), this Memorandum Decision shall not be Mar 10 2016, 8:28 am
regarded as precedent or cited before any court except for the purpose of establishing the defense of res judicata, collateral estoppel, or the law of the case.
ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLANT ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE Ruth Johnson Gregory F. Zoeller Marion County Public Defender Agency Attorney General of Indiana Appellate Division Larry D. Allen Indianapolis, Indiana Deputy Attorney General Barbara J. Simmons Indianapolis, Indiana Oldenburg, Indiana
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA
Quashawn Gentry, March 10, 2016 Appellant-Defendant, Court of Appeals Case No. 49A02-1506-CR-593 v. Appeal from the Marion Superior Court State of Indiana, The Honorable Appellee-Plaintiff. Linda E. Brown, Judge The Honorable Steven J. Rubick, Magistrate Trial Court Cause No. 49G10-1503-CM-8385
Kirsch, Judge.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 49A02-1506-CR-593 | March 10, 2016 Page 1 of 6 [1] Following a bench trial, Quashawn Gentry (“Gentry”) was found guilty of
theft1 as a Class A misdemeanor. Gentry raises one issue on appeal, which we
restate as: whether the State presented sufficient evidence to support Gentry’s
theft conviction.
[2] We affirm.
Facts and Procedural History [3] On March 4, 2015, Shalonda Reeves (“Reeves”) returned to her Marion
County home and discovered that her back door had been kicked open and was
still ajar. Inside, Reeves noted that at least two televisions had been stolen and
immediately called the police. Indianapolis Metropolitan Police Department
(“IMPD”) Officer David Waterman responded, and Reeves provided him with
the serial numbers from the stolen televisions.
[4] IMPD Detective Jon Walls2 (“Detective Walls”) was assigned to the
investigation. Before March 6, 2015, the IMPD Property Recovery Unit
notified Detective Walls that it had found one of the stolen televisions, which
had been pawned at a local pawnshop. Tr. at 18-19. Using LeadsOnline, an
internet database, Detective Walls learned that the television had been pawned
by Gentry; the detective also confirmed that Reeves’s serial number matched
1 See Ind. Code § 35-43-4-2(a). 2 Although both parties refer to Detective John Walls, Detective Walls testified that the spelling of his name is Jon. Tr. at 18.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 49A02-1506-CR-593 | March 10, 2016 Page 2 of 6 that of the pawned television. Reeves told Detective Walls that she did not
know Gentry, nor had she given anyone permission to take the television.
[5] On March 6, 2015, two days after the theft, Detective Walls called Gentry in for
questioning and conducted a recorded interview. While questioning Gentry,
Detective Walls showed him a copy of a LeadsOnline printout, which reflected
the transaction during which the pawnshop purchased Reeves’s television.3 Tr.
at 20. After looking at the printout, Gentry did not deny that he pawned the
television. Instead, he tried to explain how the television came into his
possession. Initially, he said that he had bought the television a week before,
but had to pawn it because he needed money. State’s Ex. 19. Detective Walls
explained that Gentry could not have purchased the television a week prior,
because the television had been stolen only two days before. Detective Walls
left the room, and when he returned, he asked Gentry why he was lying.
Gentry then said that he had bought the television for his daughter, just the
previous day, and insisted that he had purchased it from a “guy named Kobe.”
State’s Ex. 19. Gentry said he pawned it after his daughter was given another
television and no longer needed his. Id. Gentry admitted that he knew the
television was stolen. Id.
3 Pawnshops generally produce a pawn ticket for each item that they buy. The ticket reflects the transaction, including the item description, serial number if applicable, and the name and address of the person from whom they are buying the item.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 49A02-1506-CR-593 | March 10, 2016 Page 3 of 6 [6] The State charged Gentry with theft, as a Class A misdemeanor. Following a
bench trial, during which the above facts were introduced via the testimony of
Reeves, Officer Waterman, and Detective Walls, the trial court found Gentry
guilty of theft as a Class A misdemeanor. Gentry now appeals.
Discussion and Decision [7] Gentry challenges the sufficiency of the evidence to support his conviction for
Class A misdemeanor theft. “When we review the sufficiency of the evidence,
we consider only the probative evidence and reasonable inferences supporting
the verdict.” Buelna v. State, 20 N.E.3d 137, 141 (Ind. 2014). We consider
conflicting evidence most favorably to the trial court’s judgment. Tatusko v.
State, 990 N.E.2d 986, 991 (Ind. Ct. App. 2013). We neither reweigh the
evidence nor assess witness credibility. Buelna, 20 N.E.3d at 141. We will
affirm the conviction unless no reasonable factfinder could conclude the
elements of the crime were proven beyond a reasonable doubt. Id.
[8] A person who 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, commits theft, a Class A misdemeanor. Ind. Code § 35-43-4-
2(a). Here, the State had to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Gentry
knowingly exerted unauthorized control over Reeves’s property with the intent
to deprive her of its value. Gentry argues that he was never found in possession
of the television and that “there is nothing in the record substantively about a
pawn ticket or how the item was pawned.” Appellant’s Br. at 7. Further, he
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 49A02-1506-CR-593 | March 10, 2016 Page 4 of 6 contends “[t]here was no evidence of a witness from the pawn shop or an actual
pawn ticket demonstrating that Mr. Gentry pawned the television.” Id. Even if
true, a lack of such evidence is of no import.
[9] Although a theft conviction may be supported by circumstantial evidence alone,
we must proceed with caution to ensure that innocent individuals are not
convicted. Brink v. State, 837 N.E.2d 192, 195 (Ind. Ct. App. 2005), trans.
denied. Circumstantial evidence is that evidence “not based on actual personal
knowledge or observation of the facts in controversy, but of other facts from
which deductions are drawn, showing indirectly the facts sought to be proved.”
Black’s Law Dictionary 126 (5th ed. 1983).
[10] Using the serial number of Reeves’s stolen television, the IMPD Property
Recovery Unit was able to match the stolen television to one that had been
pawned by Gentry less than two days after the crime. This match caused
Detective Walls to bring Gentry in for questioning on March 6. During
Gentry’s questioning, Detective Walls showed him a copy of the LeadsOnline
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
MEMORANDUM DECISION Pursuant to Ind. Appellate Rule 65(D), this Memorandum Decision shall not be Mar 10 2016, 8:28 am
regarded as precedent or cited before any court except for the purpose of establishing the defense of res judicata, collateral estoppel, or the law of the case.
ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLANT ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE Ruth Johnson Gregory F. Zoeller Marion County Public Defender Agency Attorney General of Indiana Appellate Division Larry D. Allen Indianapolis, Indiana Deputy Attorney General Barbara J. Simmons Indianapolis, Indiana Oldenburg, Indiana
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA
Quashawn Gentry, March 10, 2016 Appellant-Defendant, Court of Appeals Case No. 49A02-1506-CR-593 v. Appeal from the Marion Superior Court State of Indiana, The Honorable Appellee-Plaintiff. Linda E. Brown, Judge The Honorable Steven J. Rubick, Magistrate Trial Court Cause No. 49G10-1503-CM-8385
Kirsch, Judge.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 49A02-1506-CR-593 | March 10, 2016 Page 1 of 6 [1] Following a bench trial, Quashawn Gentry (“Gentry”) was found guilty of
theft1 as a Class A misdemeanor. Gentry raises one issue on appeal, which we
restate as: whether the State presented sufficient evidence to support Gentry’s
theft conviction.
[2] We affirm.
Facts and Procedural History [3] On March 4, 2015, Shalonda Reeves (“Reeves”) returned to her Marion
County home and discovered that her back door had been kicked open and was
still ajar. Inside, Reeves noted that at least two televisions had been stolen and
immediately called the police. Indianapolis Metropolitan Police Department
(“IMPD”) Officer David Waterman responded, and Reeves provided him with
the serial numbers from the stolen televisions.
[4] IMPD Detective Jon Walls2 (“Detective Walls”) was assigned to the
investigation. Before March 6, 2015, the IMPD Property Recovery Unit
notified Detective Walls that it had found one of the stolen televisions, which
had been pawned at a local pawnshop. Tr. at 18-19. Using LeadsOnline, an
internet database, Detective Walls learned that the television had been pawned
by Gentry; the detective also confirmed that Reeves’s serial number matched
1 See Ind. Code § 35-43-4-2(a). 2 Although both parties refer to Detective John Walls, Detective Walls testified that the spelling of his name is Jon. Tr. at 18.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 49A02-1506-CR-593 | March 10, 2016 Page 2 of 6 that of the pawned television. Reeves told Detective Walls that she did not
know Gentry, nor had she given anyone permission to take the television.
[5] On March 6, 2015, two days after the theft, Detective Walls called Gentry in for
questioning and conducted a recorded interview. While questioning Gentry,
Detective Walls showed him a copy of a LeadsOnline printout, which reflected
the transaction during which the pawnshop purchased Reeves’s television.3 Tr.
at 20. After looking at the printout, Gentry did not deny that he pawned the
television. Instead, he tried to explain how the television came into his
possession. Initially, he said that he had bought the television a week before,
but had to pawn it because he needed money. State’s Ex. 19. Detective Walls
explained that Gentry could not have purchased the television a week prior,
because the television had been stolen only two days before. Detective Walls
left the room, and when he returned, he asked Gentry why he was lying.
Gentry then said that he had bought the television for his daughter, just the
previous day, and insisted that he had purchased it from a “guy named Kobe.”
State’s Ex. 19. Gentry said he pawned it after his daughter was given another
television and no longer needed his. Id. Gentry admitted that he knew the
television was stolen. Id.
3 Pawnshops generally produce a pawn ticket for each item that they buy. The ticket reflects the transaction, including the item description, serial number if applicable, and the name and address of the person from whom they are buying the item.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 49A02-1506-CR-593 | March 10, 2016 Page 3 of 6 [6] The State charged Gentry with theft, as a Class A misdemeanor. Following a
bench trial, during which the above facts were introduced via the testimony of
Reeves, Officer Waterman, and Detective Walls, the trial court found Gentry
guilty of theft as a Class A misdemeanor. Gentry now appeals.
Discussion and Decision [7] Gentry challenges the sufficiency of the evidence to support his conviction for
Class A misdemeanor theft. “When we review the sufficiency of the evidence,
we consider only the probative evidence and reasonable inferences supporting
the verdict.” Buelna v. State, 20 N.E.3d 137, 141 (Ind. 2014). We consider
conflicting evidence most favorably to the trial court’s judgment. Tatusko v.
State, 990 N.E.2d 986, 991 (Ind. Ct. App. 2013). We neither reweigh the
evidence nor assess witness credibility. Buelna, 20 N.E.3d at 141. We will
affirm the conviction unless no reasonable factfinder could conclude the
elements of the crime were proven beyond a reasonable doubt. Id.
[8] A person who 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, commits theft, a Class A misdemeanor. Ind. Code § 35-43-4-
2(a). Here, the State had to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Gentry
knowingly exerted unauthorized control over Reeves’s property with the intent
to deprive her of its value. Gentry argues that he was never found in possession
of the television and that “there is nothing in the record substantively about a
pawn ticket or how the item was pawned.” Appellant’s Br. at 7. Further, he
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 49A02-1506-CR-593 | March 10, 2016 Page 4 of 6 contends “[t]here was no evidence of a witness from the pawn shop or an actual
pawn ticket demonstrating that Mr. Gentry pawned the television.” Id. Even if
true, a lack of such evidence is of no import.
[9] Although a theft conviction may be supported by circumstantial evidence alone,
we must proceed with caution to ensure that innocent individuals are not
convicted. Brink v. State, 837 N.E.2d 192, 195 (Ind. Ct. App. 2005), trans.
denied. Circumstantial evidence is that evidence “not based on actual personal
knowledge or observation of the facts in controversy, but of other facts from
which deductions are drawn, showing indirectly the facts sought to be proved.”
Black’s Law Dictionary 126 (5th ed. 1983).
[10] Using the serial number of Reeves’s stolen television, the IMPD Property
Recovery Unit was able to match the stolen television to one that had been
pawned by Gentry less than two days after the crime. This match caused
Detective Walls to bring Gentry in for questioning on March 6. During
Gentry’s questioning, Detective Walls showed him a copy of the LeadsOnline
printout, which reflected the transaction during which Reeves’s television was
sold to the pawn shop. Tr. at 20; State’s Ex. 19. Although Gentry was
inconsistent in his explanation about when and how he obtained the television,
he never denied that he pawned the television listed on the printout. Gentry
also admitted that he knew that the television was stolen. Tr. at 24; State’s Ex.
19.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 49A02-1506-CR-593 | March 10, 2016 Page 5 of 6 [11] From this evidence it was reasonable for the trier of fact to find that Gentry
knowingly possessed and had unauthorized control over Reeves’s television—a
television that he knew was stolen—and that he intended to deprive her of its
value or use when he pawned it. See Purifoy v. State, 821 N.E.2d 409, 413 (Ind.
Ct. App. 2005) (citing Gibson v. State, 643 N.E.2d 885, 891 (Ind. 1994) (nothing
in logic prevents person, who is not the actual thief, from knowingly possessing
property of another with intent to deprive that person of its use and, therefore,
being guilty of theft), trans. denied. This evidence, circumstantial and otherwise,
was sufficient to support Gentry’s conviction for Class A misdemeanor theft.
[12] Affirmed.
[13] Mathias, J., and Brown, J., concur.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 49A02-1506-CR-593 | March 10, 2016 Page 6 of 6