Derrick Anthony Duncan v. State of Indiana (mem. dec.)

MEMORANDUM DECISION Pursuant to Ind. Appellate Rule 65(D), this Memorandum Decision shall not be Dec 21 2015, 7:01 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 Jeffrey D. Stonebraker Gregory F. Zoeller Clark County Chief Public Defender Attorney General of Indiana Jeffersonville, Indiana Paula J. Beller Deputy Attorney General Indianapolis, Indiana

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA

Derrick Anthony Duncan, December 21, 2015 Appellant-Defendant, Court of Appeals Case No. 10A04-1505-CR-509 v. Appeal from the Clark Circuit Court State of Indiana, The Honorable Glenn Hancock, Appellee-Plaintiff. Senior Judge Trial Court Cause No. 10C03-1203-FD-422

Bradford, Judge.

Case Summary Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 10A04-1505-CR-509 | December 21, 2015 Page 1 of 8 [1] In June of 2005, Appellant-Defendant Derrick Anthony Duncan was convicted

of Class B felony child molesting. As a result of his conviction, Duncan was

classified as a sexual violent predator and was given a lifetime registration

requirement with the Sex and Violent Offender Registry. In March of 2012,

Duncan briefly obtained employment at two restaurants in Clark County.

Duncan failed to comply with the registration requirements for employment in

Clark County during these brief periods of employment. As a result of his

failure to comply with the registration requirements, he was subsequently

convicted of Class D felony failure to register. [2] On appeal, Duncan contends that the evidence is insufficient to sustain his

conviction for Class D felony failure to register. Concluding otherwise, we

affirm.

Facts and Procedural History [3] In June of 2005, Duncan was convicted of Class B felony child molesting. As a

result of this conviction, Duncan was classified as a sexual violent predator with

a lifetime registration requirement. Upon his release from the Department of

Correction (“DOC”), Duncan acknowledged that he read or had read to him

information setting forth his registration duties and that he had received a

written copy of this information. Duncan also acknowledged that he

understood his statutory registration duties.

Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 10A04-1505-CR-509 | December 21, 2015 Page 2 of 8 [4] In March of 2012, Duncan resided in Scott County. On March 9, 2012, he

obtained employment at a Kentucky Fried Chicken (“KFC”) restaurant located

in Clark County. On March 13, 2012, Duncan obtained additional

employment at an International House of Pancakes (“IHOP”) restaurant. The

IHOP restaurant was also located in Clark County. Duncan failed to register

with the Clark County Sheriff’s Department Registry Division (“Clark County

Sheriff’s Registry Division”), the entity responsible for sex offender registration

in Clark County, within seventy-two hours of obtaining either source of

employment. [5] At some point, Duncan scheduled an appointment with the Clark County

Sheriff’s Registry Division for March 20, 2012. Duncan failed to appear for this

meeting. Duncan subsequently informed representatives of the Clark County

Sheriff’s Registry Division that he had failed to appear because his employment

at both the KFC and the IHOP restaurants ended on March 19, 2012. [6] On March 20, 2012, Appellee-Plaintiff the State of Indiana (the “State”)

charged Duncan with Class D felony failure to register. The State also alleged

that Duncan was a habitual offender. Following a two-day jury trial, Duncan

was convicted of Class D felony failure to register. He was also found to be a

habitual offender. This appeal follows.

Discussion and Decision

Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 10A04-1505-CR-509 | December 21, 2015 Page 3 of 8 [7] Duncan contends that the evidence is insufficient to sustain his conviction for

failure to register.

When reviewing the sufficiency of the evidence to support a conviction, appellate courts must consider only the probative evidence and reasonable inferences supporting the verdict. It is the fact-finder’s role, not that of appellate courts, to assess witness credibility and weigh the evidence to determine whether it is sufficient to support a conviction. To preserve this structure, when appellate courts are confronted with conflicting evidence, they must consider it most favorably to the trial court’s ruling. Appellate courts affirm the conviction unless no reasonable fact- finder could find the elements of the crime proven beyond a reasonable doubt. It is therefore not necessary that the evidence overcome every reasonable hypothesis of innocence. The evidence is sufficient if an inference may reasonably be drawn from it to support the verdict.

Drane v. State, 867 N.E.2d 144, 146-47 (Ind. 2007) (citations, emphasis, and

quotations omitted). “In essence, we assess only whether the verdict could be

reached based on reasonable inferences that may be drawn from the evidence

presented.” Baker v. State, 968 N.E.2d 227, 229 (Ind. 2012) (emphasis in

original). Upon review, appellate courts do not reweigh the evidence or assess

the credibility of the witnesses, Stewart v. State, 768 N.E.2d 433, 435 (Ind. 2002),

as the jury, acting as the trier-of-fact, is “‘free to believe whomever they wish.’”

Klaff v. State, 884 N.E.2d 272, 274 (Ind. Ct. App. 2008) (quoting McClendon v.

State, 671 N.E.2d 486, 488 (Ind. Ct. App. 1996)). [8] “[A] conviction may be based purely on circumstantial evidence.” Hayes v.

State, 876 N.E.2d 373, 375 (Ind. Ct. App. 2007) (citing Moore v. State, 652

Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 10A04-1505-CR-509 | December 21, 2015 Page 4 of 8

N.E.2d 53, 55 (Ind. 1995)), trans. denied. “‘On appeal, the circumstantial

evidence need not overcome every reasonable hypothesis of innocence.’” Id.

(quoting Moore, 652 N.E.2d at 55). “It is enough if an inference reasonably

tending to support the conviction can be drawn from the circumstantial

evidence.” Id. (citing Moore, 652 N.E.2d at 55). Thus, where circumstantial

evidence is used to establish guilt, “‘the question for the reviewing court is

whether reasonable minds could reach the inferences drawn by the jury; if so,

there is sufficient evidence.’” Klaff, 884 N.E.2d at 274-75 (quoting Maxwell v.

State, 731 N.E.2d 459, 462 (Ind. Ct. App. 2000)). [9] In March of 2012, Indiana Code section 11-8-8-11(c) provided that if a sex or

violent offender who is required to register changes his or her principal place of

employment to a county other than the county in which the offender resides,

“the sex or violent offender shall report in person: … to the local law

enforcement authority having jurisdiction over the sex or violent offender’s new

principal place of employment … not more than seventy-two (72) hours after the

change.” (Emphases added). On March 30, 2012, the State filed a charging

information alleging that Duncan had failed to satisfy the above-quoted

registration requirement in violation of Indiana Code section 11-8-8-17. The

version of Indiana Code section 11-8-8-17 in effect at the time provided that

“[a] sex or violent offender who knowingly or intentionally: (1) fails to register

when required to register under this chapter; (2) fails to register in every

location where the sex or violent offender is required to register under this

chapter; … [or] (4) fails to register in person as required under this chapter …

Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 10A04-1505-CR-509 | December 21, 2015 Page 5 of 8

commits a Class D felony.” Thus, in order to prove that Duncan committed

the alleged Class D felony, the State was required to prove that Duncan

knowingly or intentionally failed to register, in person, with a required entity

within the statutorily imposed seventy-two-hour time frame. [10] Initially, we note that Duncan does not dispute that he was required to register

in Clark County. Duncan merely argues that the State failed to prove beyond a

reasonable doubt that he knowingly or intentionally failed to comply with the

registration requirements within the statutorily imposed seventy-two-hour time

frame. We disagree. [11] With respect to the mens rea requirement, i.e., whether Duncan acted knowingly

or intentionally, the State introduced evidence indicating that Duncan

acknowledged, in writing, that he understood his registration duties.

Specifically, Duncan signed a statement which provided as follows:

I read or have had read to me the information contained in “Sex and Violent Offender Registration Responsibilities and Other Duties.” By my signature, I acknowledge that I have received a copy of this information and that I understand my registration duties and obligations under IC 11-8-8[,] IC 35-42-4[,] and other corresponding Indiana Statutes.

State’s Ex. 3. Angie Huggins, a re-entry specialist with the DOC, also signed a

statement which provided as follows: “I hereby certify that [Duncan] was orally

informed and provided a copy of the information contained in ‘Sex and Violent

Offender Registration Responsibilities and Other Duties.’” State’s Ex. 3. In

addition, the State presented evidence indicating that when an offender is Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 10A04-1505-CR-509 | December 21, 2015 Page 6 of 8

released from the DOC, the offender must attend and complete an exit class,

during which the registration process and requirements is explained. Duncan’s

acknowledgement that he understood the applicable registration requirements

supports the reasonable inference that a failure to comply with said

requirements would be done knowingly or intentionally. [12] The record also contains evidence sufficient to sustain the jury’s determination

that Duncan failed to register, in person, with the Clark County Sheriff’s

Registry Division within the statutorily allotted seventy-two-hour time frame.

The State presented evidence that Duncan’s employment at the KFC began on

March 9, 2012. Thus, with respect to his employment at KFC, the deadline for

Duncan to register with the Clark County Sheriff’s Registry Division was no

later than March 12, 2012. Likewise, the State presented evidence that

Duncan’s employment at the IHOP began on March 13, 2012. Thus, with

respect to his employment at IHOP, the deadline for Duncan to register with

the Clark County Sheriff’s Registry Division was no later than March 16, 2012.

Clark County Sheriff’s Detective Captain Tim Franklin, who was tasked with

investigating potential violations of the statutorily proscribed registration

requirements in Clark County, testified that he never received any type of

notification or information indicating that Duncan contacted the Clark County

Sheriff’s Registry Division within the statutorily imposed seventy-two-hour time

frame. [13] In sum, we conclude that the evidence is sufficient to sustain Duncan’s

conviction for Class D felony failure to register. Duncan’s claim to the contrary

Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 10A04-1505-CR-509 | December 21, 2015 Page 7 of 8

effectively amounts to an invitation to reweigh the evidence, which we will not

do. See Stewart, 768 N.E.2d at 375. [14] The judgment of the trial court is affirmed.

Baker, J., and Pyle, J., concur.

Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 10A04-1505-CR-509 | December 21, 2015 Page 8 of 8