Tenaya Lee v. State of Indiana (mem. dec.)

• Court: Indiana Court of Appeals
• Decided: June 14, 2018
• Docket: 18A-CR-64
• Status: Published

Opinion

MEMORANDUM DECISION FILED Pursuant to Ind. Appellate Rule 65(D), this Memorandum Decision shall not be Jun 14 2018, 7:13 am

regarded as precedent or cited before any CLERK Indiana Supreme Court court except for the purpose of establishing Court of Appeals and Tax Court 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 J.T. Whitehead Deputy Attorney General Indianapolis, Indiana

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA

Tenaya Lee, June 14, 2018 Appellant-Defendant, Court of Appeals Case No. 18A-CR-64 v. Appeal from the Marion Superior Court State of Indiana, The Honorable Steven J. Rubick, Appellee-Plaintiff Magistrate Trial Court Cause No. 49G07-1608-CM-30037

Baker, Judge.

Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 18A-CR-64 | June 14, 2018 Page 1 of 4 [1] Tenaya Lee appeals her conviction for Class A Misdemeanor Criminal

Mischief,1 arguing that the evidence was insufficient to support her conviction.

Finding the evidence sufficient, we affirm.

[2] On July 8, 2016, Erin Cannon was working at a nail salon in Marion County.

At some point, Lee entered the salon, and Cannon told her that she was not

allowed inside. Cannon had known Lee for four or five years; Lee had been

Cannon’s client. Cannon followed Lee outside and called the police.

[3] Meanwhile, Jesse Dickerson was sitting in his vehicle, which was parked in

front of Cannon’s vehicle in the parking lot, waiting for his wife, who was in

the salon. Dickerson saw Lee and two other women key Cannon’s vehicle and

puncture its tires for approximately four to five minutes. Dickerson observed

Lee perform a “majority” of the acts of vandalism. Tr. Vol. II p. 27. While

Cannon was on the phone with the police, Dickerson told her that her vehicle

had been vandalized. Cannon then approached her vehicle and saw that it had

key marks and that two of the tires were slashed. Within a few minutes of

looking at her vehicle, Cannon received a video phone call from Lee in which

Lee said, “Haha, you have to get a new paint job now.” Id. at 10. Cannon’s

vehicle suffered damage totaling approximately $3200.

[4] On August 9, 2016, the State charged Lee with Class A misdemeanor criminal

mischief. On November 2, 2017, a bench trial took place, and on November

1 Ind. Code § 35-43-1-2(a)(1).

Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 18A-CR-64 | June 14, 2018 Page 2 of 4 16, 2017, the trial court found Lee guilty as charged. During a December 14,

2017, sentencing hearing, the trial court sentenced Lee to 365 days, with 60

days executed, and 305 days suspended to probation. Lee now appeals.

[5] Lee’s sole argument is that the evidence was insufficient to support her

conviction. Specifically, she contends that the evidence did not show that she

was the person who vandalized Cannon’s vehicle. When considering a

challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence, we do not reweigh the evidence or

judge the credibility of the witnesses. McHenry v. State, 820 N.E.2d 124, 126

(Ind. 2005). We will affirm if the probative evidence and the reasonable

inferences drawn therefrom could have allowed a reasonable jury to find the

defendant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. Id.

[6] To prove that Lee committed Class A misdemeanor criminal mischief, the State

was required to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Lee recklessly,

knowingly, or intentionally damaged or defaced Cannon’s property without

Cannon’s consent, and that the monetary loss was at least $750 but less than

$50,000. I.C. § 35-43-1-2(a)(1). Lee does not dispute that Cannon’s vehicle was

vandalized or that the monetary loss was in the listed range. Rather, she argues

that the State failed to prove that she was the one who vandalized the vehicle.

Generally, the “[e]lements of offenses and identity may be established entirely

by circumstantial evidence and logical inferences drawn therefrom.”

Bustamante v. State, 557 N.E.2d 1313, 1317 (Ind. 1990).

Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 18A-CR-64 | June 14, 2018 Page 3 of 4 [7] Here, the evidence shows that Dickerson witnessed the vandalization and

testified that Lee was responsible for most of the damage done to Cannon’s

vehicle. Dickerson testified that he saw Lee key the vehicle and puncture the

tires. The evidence also shows that, shortly after the offense, Lee called

Cannon through a video phone call and said, “Haha, you have to get a new

paint job now.” Tr. Vol. II p. 10. Cannon recognized Lee because she used to

be a client, and Lee’s video phone call corroborates Dickerson’s testimony.

Under these facts and circumstances, a reasonable factfinder could conclude

that it was Lee who vandalized Cannon’s vehicle. Lee’s argument is

unavailing.

[8] The judgment of the trial court is affirmed.

Kirsch, J., and Bradford, J., concur.

Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 18A-CR-64 | June 14, 2018 Page 4 of 4