Rodger L. Blackburn v. State of Indiana (mem. dec.)

• Court: Indiana Court of Appeals
• Decided: December 14, 2015
• Docket: 11A01-1505-CR-398
• Status: Published

Opinion

MEMORANDUM DECISION Pursuant to Ind. Appellate Rule 65(D), this Memorandum Decision shall not be Dec 14 2015, 9:03 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.

ATTORNEY FOR APPELLANT ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE Cara Schaefer Wieneke Gregory F. Zoeller Wieneke Law Office, LLC Attorney General of Indiana Plainfield, Indiana Richard C. Webster Deputy Attorney General Indianapolis, Indiana

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA

Rodger L. Blackburn, December 14, 2015 Appellant-Defendant, Court of Appeals Case No. 11A01-1505-CR-398 v. Appeal from the Clay Circuit Court State of Indiana, The Honorable Joseph Trout, Appellee-Plaintiff Judge Trial Court Cause No. 11C01-1411-F5-837

Bailey, Judge.

Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 11A01-1505-CR-398 | December 14, 2015 Page 1 of 6 Case Summary [1] In this belated appeal pursuant to Indiana Post-Conviction Rule 2, Rodger L.

Blackburn (“Blackburn”) appeals his conviction for Criminal Trespass, as a Class

A misdemeanor.1 He presents the sole issue of whether the evidence is sufficient

to support the conviction. We affirm.

Facts and Procedural History [2] In 2001, Edward Blackburn (“Edward”), who is Blackburn’s brother, purchased

land and a residence in Clay County (“the Property”). Blackburn twice assisted

Edward with roofing work at the Property.

[3] In 2014, Edward rented the Property to his sister, Angie Hastings (“Hastings”),

and brother-in-law, Billy Matherly (“Matherly”). Edward prohibited Hastings

and Matherly from allowing Blackburn on the Property. Nonetheless,

Blackburn twice came to the Property during Hastings’s tenancy. Although

Blackburn was advised that he was not allowed on the Property, he remained

long enough to engage in some conversation with his mother, Debbie

Blackburn (“Debbie”) without incident.

[4] On November 2, 2014, Blackburn again came to the Property for the purpose of

speaking with his mother. They engaged in some conversation on the porch

1 Ind. Code § 35-43-2-2. Blackburn does not challenge his conviction for Battery, as a Level 5 felony. I.C. § 35-42-2-1.

Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 11A01-1505-CR-398 | December 14, 2015 Page 2 of 6 and Debbie went back into the house. She refused to come back outside and

this angered Blackburn. He began to curse and threaten both Hastings and

Matherly. Blackburn charged through the door and a fight ensued between him

and Matherly. During the struggle, Blackburn drew a knife from his pocket and

stabbed Matherly in the shoulder. Hastings called 9-1-1 and Blackburn fled.

[5] On November 17, 2014, Blackburn was arrested. He was charged with two

counts of Battery (one as to Matherly and one as to Hastings)2 and one count

each of Criminal Recklessness3 and Criminal Trespass. Blackburn was tried

before a jury and acquitted of the alleged battery upon Hastings. He was

convicted of the remaining charges. Due to double jeopardy concerns, the trial

court did not enter judgment upon the Criminal Recklessness conviction.

Blackburn was sentenced to six years imprisonment for the Level 5 battery

upon Matherly. He was given a one-year concurrent sentence for Criminal

Trespass. This appeal ensued.

Discussion and Decision [6] Blackburn was charged with violating Indiana Code section 35-43-2-2(b)(1),

which provides:

A person who:

2 Hastings had reported to police that Blackburn had kicked her in the stomach. 3 I.C. § 35-42-2-2.

Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 11A01-1505-CR-398 | December 14, 2015 Page 3 of 6 (1) not having a contractual interest in the property, knowingly or intentionally enters the real property of another person after having been denied entry by the other person or that person’s agent[.]

[7] Subsection (c) provides in relevant part:

A person has been denied entry under subsection (b)(1) when the person has been denied entry by means of:

(1) personal communication, oral or written; (2) posting or exhibiting a notice at the main entrance in a manner that is either prescribed by law or likely to come to the attention of the public; or (3) a hearing authority or court order [.]

[8] The criminal trespass statute’s purpose is to punish those who willfully or

without a bona fide claim of right commit acts of trespass on the land of

another. Semenick v. State, 977 N.E.2d 7, 9 (Ind. Ct. App. 2012), trans. denied.

Blackburn acknowledges that sufficient evidence exists to prove that he did not

have a contractual interest in the Property, and that he knowingly or

intentionally entered onto it. He asserts only that the State failed to prove

beyond a reasonable doubt that his entry occurred after he had been denied

entry by his sister or her agent.

[9] When reviewing the sufficiency of the evidence to support a conviction, we will

consider only the probative evidence and reasonable inferences supporting the

verdict. Drane v. State, 867 N.E.2d 144, 146 (Ind. 2007). We will affirm the

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

proven beyond a reasonable doubt. Id.

Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 11A01-1505-CR-398 | December 14, 2015 Page 4 of 6 [10] The State introduced evidence that the owner and the tenants of the property

had denied Blackburn entry. Edward testified: “I told [Rodger] I didn’t want

[him] anywhere on my property.” (Tr. at 10.) Matherly testified that he had

“told Rodger Blackburn not to come to [the Property]” and that “one of the

stipulations of us renting the house was [Blackburn is] not to be on the

property.” (Tr. at 23.) Matherly testified further:

He’s came [sic] there a couple different times before this incident and we’ve told him he’s not to be there, but instead of get in an argument and make him leave, he just wanted to talk to his mom so we figured all right, let him talk to his mom, get him out of here with as much or as less trauma.

(Tr. at 23.) Hastings corroborated her husband’s testimony:

The last time he was at my house I told him he wasn’t supposed to be there because we would have to leave. We would have to move. He wasn’t allowed on the property from my other brother[.] . . . In fact we asked him not to come to our house.

(Tr. at 63, 70.)

[11] There is sufficient evidence from which the jury could find that Blackburn had

entered the Property after being denied entry in accordance with Indiana Code

section 35-43-2-2(1)(c).

Conclusion

Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 11A01-1505-CR-398 | December 14, 2015 Page 5 of 6 [12] Blackburn’s conviction for Criminal Trespass is supported by sufficient

evidence.

[13] Affirmed.

Vaidik, C.J., and Crone, J., concur.

Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 11A01-1505-CR-398 | December 14, 2015 Page 6 of 6