Robert Ledbetter, Jr. v. State of Indiana (mem. dec.)

MEMORANDUM DECISION Pursuant to Ind. Appellate Rule 65(D), this Memorandum Decision shall not be regarded as Feb 13 2015, 10:00 am 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 Michelle F. Kraus Gregory F. Zoeller Fort Wayne, Indiana Attorney General of Indiana

Graham T. Youngs Deputy Attorney General Indianapolis, Indiana

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA

Robert Ledbetter, Jr., February 13, 2015

Appellant-Defendant, Court of Appeals Case No. 02A03-1406-CR-197 v. Appeal from the Allen Superior Court The Honorable Frances C. Gull, State of Indiana, Judge Appellee-Plaintiff Case No. 02D04-1306-FC-200

Crone, Judge.

Case Summary [1] A jury found Robert Ledbetter, Jr., guilty of class D felony theft. Ledbetter

challenges the sufficiency of the evidence supporting his conviction, claiming

Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 02A03-1406-CR-197 | February 13, 2015 Page 1 of 5

that the State failed to present sufficient evidence that he formed the requisite

intent under the theft statute. We affirm.

Facts and Procedural History [2] The facts most favorable to the jury’s verdict are that around 11:00 p.m. on

June 10, 2013, Officer Greg Anderson of the City of New Haven Police

Department responded to a dispatch regarding a suspicious vehicle on a service

road near Mills Auto Parts, a scrap auto parts store. Officer James Krueger

arrived as backup. They walked to the end of the service road and found an

unoccupied car parked on the side of a ditch opposite Mills Auto Parts. The car

was registered to Ledbetter. The officers observed that the back seats were

folded down and plastic covered the back part of the car. [3] The officers hid in the nearby weeds for almost two hours. At that time, they

heard people whispering and the clanking of metal. The officers then observed

Ledbetter, Troy Lehr, and Pervis Hall carrying rims. The men had walked

without lights along a brushy area and through a creek to reach the car. As the

men approached the vehicle, the trunk was opened, and an interior light came

on. Officer Anderson heard one of the men ask how to turn off the light. The

officers came out of hiding and arrested the men. Lehr told the officers that he

was working with the FBI. Between two piles at the car and at the creek, the

officers discovered eleven rims, four car batteries, and three alternators. [4] Officer Krueger contacted James Mills, the owner of Mills Auto Parts. Mills

came to the location and identified the parts as his. Mills took Officer Krueger

Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 02A03-1406-CR-197 | February 13, 2015 Page 2 of 5

into his building, where they saw a broken window pane and an empty spot on

the shelves where the rims had been. There were rims sitting outside the

window. Mills did not know any of the men, nor had he given them permission

to enter his property. [5] The State charged Ledbetter with one count of class C felony burglary and one

count of class D felony theft. Lehr was charged with one count of class C

felony burglary, three counts of class C felony aiding burglary, and one count of

class D felony theft, and he reached a plea agreement with the State. Pursuant

to the agreement, Lehr was required to testify truthfully in any criminal

proceeding brought by the State against other defendants in this matter in

exchange for the State’s dismissal of five other charges. [6] At Ledbetter’s trial, Lehr testified as follows. Lehr had known Ledbetter for

approximately one-and-a-half to two years. He went to Mills Auto Parts with

the intention to steal scrap metal. He went alone on foot, found a window

without glass, and entered. He started carrying rims outside to the edge of the

property. He needed someone with a car to haul the scrap metal. According to

Lehr, he called Ledbetter and “told him that I actually worked there and that

my boss had given me permission to take the stuff and that I had permission to

take the stuff out of there.” Tr. at 80. Ledbetter and Hall arrived together, and

Lehr directed them to drive on the service road. Lehr told Ledbetter that they

were moving the scrap metal at 11:00 p.m. because “when I got off work I

didn’t have a ride and I’ve been stuck trying to find a ride.” Id. at 81. Upon

arrest, Lehr told the officers that he was working for the FBI “because I was

Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 02A03-1406-CR-197 | February 13, 2015 Page 3 of 5

trying to get out of trouble.” Id. at 90. He testified that he would lie “for me to

get out of trouble,” but not to get others out of trouble. Id. According to Lehr,

he misled Ledbetter about having permission to enter the property and take the

scrap metal. [7] Neither Ledbetter nor Hall testified at trial. A jury found Ledbetter guilty of

theft and not guilty of burglary.

Discussion and Decision [8] Ledbetter argues that the State presented insufficient evidence to support his

theft conviction. In reviewing a challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence,

“we neither reweigh the evidence nor assess witness credibility, and will focus

on the evidence most favorable to the verdict together with the reasonable

inferences that may be drawn therefrom. We will affirm unless no reasonable

factfinder could find the elements of the crime proved beyond a reasonable

doubt.” Cooper v. State, 940 N.E.2d 1210, 1213 (Ind. Ct. App. 2011) (citation

omitted), trans. denied. [9] Indiana Code Section 35-43-4-2(a) provides in pertinent part that “[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.” “Intent can be inferred from a defendant’s conduct and

the natural and usual sequence to which such conduct logically and reasonably

points. . . . Intent is a mental function; hence, absent a confession, it often must

Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 02A03-1406-CR-197 | February 13, 2015 Page 4 of 5

be proven by circumstantial evidence.” Knox v. State, 13 N.E.3d 899, 901 (Ind.

Ct. App. 2014) (citations and quotation marks omitted). [10] Ledbetter asserts that there is unrebutted testimony that he acted under the

belief that Lehr had permission to remove the property. This assertion is an

invitation to reweigh the evidence and assess witness credibility, which we may

not do. The jury was entitled to disbelieve Lehr’s testimony that Ledbetter

believed he had permission to remove property from Mills Auto Parts and to

credit the significant circumstantial evidence tending to show that Ledbetter

knowingly or intentionally exerted unauthorized control over the property. The

evidence is sufficient to support Ledbetter’s conviction. [11] Affirmed.

Friedlander, J., and Kirsch, J., concur.

Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 02A03-1406-CR-197 | February 13, 2015 Page 5 of 5