Sanchez Dupree Martin v. State of Indiana (mem. dec.)

MEMORANDUM DECISION Pursuant to Ind. Appellate Rule 65(D), this Memorandum Decision shall not be FILED regarded as precedent or cited before any Mar 21 2017, 8:26 am court except for the purpose of establishing the defense of res judicata, collateral CLERK Indiana Supreme Court Court of Appeals estoppel, or the law of the case. and Tax Court

ATTORNEY FOR APPELLANT ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE Troy D. Warner Curtis T. Hill, Jr. Deputy Public Defender Attorney General of Indiana South Bend, Indiana J.T. Whitehead Deputy Attorney General Indianapolis, Indiana

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA

Sanchez Dupree Martin, March 21, 2017 Appellant-Defendant, Court of Appeals Case No. 71A05-1611-CR-2674 v. Appeal from the St. Joseph Superior Court State of Indiana, The Honorable Jeffrey L. Sanford, Appellee-Plaintiff. Judge Trial Court Cause No. 71D03-1605-F5-95

Bailey, Judge. Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 71A05-1611-CR-2674 | March 21, 2017 Page 1 of 7

Case Summary [1] After a bench trial, Sanchez Dupree Martin (“Martin”) was convicted of

Burglary, as a Level 5 felony,1 and was sentenced to six years imprisonment.

He now appeals, raising for our review the sole question of whether there was

sufficient evidence to sustain the conviction. [2] We affirm.

Facts and Procedural History [3] In March 2016, Martin and another man introduced themselves to Joseph

Adams (“Adams”), a digital artist who was working with a South Bend-based

organization, Project Impact. Adams was renovating space that Hardy Blake

(“Blake”), Project Impact’s director and the building’s owner, had been using

for storage. Adams planned to convert the space to use for his work in digital

art and to provide training to others in how to work in that field. Adams was

painting, and Martin and his companion asked if they could do some work for

Adams. Adams agreed and paid the men $50 each. Martin worked for a

period of time, but eventually left. [4] A few days later, Adams encountered Martin again, and Martin again offered

to do some work for Adams. Adams asked Martin to pass out flyers advertising

1 Ind. Code § 35-43-2-1.

Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 71A05-1611-CR-2674 | March 21, 2017 Page 2 of 7

Adams’s business at a car show. Adams also gave Martin a tablet computer to

use for the task, because some of Adams’s artwork and videography was visible

on the tablet. Adams asked Martin to take care of the tablet and return it as

soon as he was done with it. Martin took the flyers and the tablet, but did not

return. [5] A few days after that, on March 21, 2016, Adams had finished working on his

space at Project Impact for the evening. Around midnight, Adams locked the

door and returned to his residence in Benton Harbor, Michigan. At around

four in the morning on the following day, March 22, 2016, the burglar alarm

was activated at Project Impact. [6] When police responded, no one was present, but glass next to the building’s

door had been broken and the door was unlocked. The window that had been

broken had a hole in the glass large enough for a person to reach an arm

through to open the door. Police investigation revealed that there was blood on

a portion of the broken glass, and there were several drops of blood on the floor. [7] Police notified Blake of the break-in, and Blake in turn notified Adams. Adams

left his home at around 4:30 a.m. and arrived at the scene some time later.

Adams determined that one of his computers was missing. [8] Later that morning, Adams received a phone call from Martin asking about

what had happened. Adams indicated that he was too upset to talk about the

day’s events.

Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 71A05-1611-CR-2674 | March 21, 2017 Page 3 of 7 [9] Subsequent investigation identified Martin as a suspect, and DNA testing

confirmed that Martin’s blood was on the broken glass. Adams later identified

Martin from a line-up at the South Bend Police Department. [10] On May 25, 2016, the State charged Martin with Burglary, as a Level 5 felony. [11] A bench trial was conducted on August 8, 2016, at the conclusion of which the

trial court took the matter under advisement. [12] On August 12, 2016, the court found Martin guilty as charged and entered a

judgment of conviction against him. A sentencing hearing was conducted on

September 9, 2016, at the conclusion of which the court sentenced Martin to six

years imprisonment. [13] This appeal ensued.

Discussion and Decision [14] Martin challenges the sufficiency of the evidence supporting his conviction.

Our standard of review for such challenges is well settled:

This court will not reweigh the evidence or assess the credibility of witnesses. Cox v. State, 774 N.E.2d 1025, 1028 (Ind. Ct. App. 2002). Only the evidence most favorable to the judgment, together with all reasonable inferences that can be drawn therefrom will be considered. Id. If a reasonable trier of fact could have found the defendant guilty based on the probative evidence and reasonable inferences drawn therefrom, then a conviction will be affirmed. Id. at 1028–29.

Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 71A05-1611-CR-2674 | March 21, 2017 Page 4 of 7

Sargent v. State, 875 N.E.2d 762, 767 (Ind. Ct. App. 2007). [15] The State charged Martin with Burglary, as a Level 5 felony. To convict

Martin as charged, the State was required to prove beyond a reasonable doubt

that Martin knowingly broke into and entered the building of Project Impact,

with the intent to commit theft therein. See I.C. § 35-43-2-1; App’x Vol. 2 at 4. [16] Martin contends that the State proved no more than that Martin “was in the

wrong place at the right time” (Appellant’s Br. at 11), and that there was

insufficient evidence of intent to commit theft. With respect to the first of these,

Indiana courts have reversed convictions for burglary when a defendant was “in

the ‘right place at the wrong time,’” particularly when the evidence at trial

establishes nothing more than opportunity to commit the charged offense.

McMahel v. State, 609 N.E.2d 1175, 1177 (Ind. Ct. App. 1993). Martin likens

his case to these prior cases. [17] We disagree with Martin’s characterization of the evidence. The evidence in

this case that favors the judgment is that Martin was familiar with the premises

of Project Impact and was aware of the items inside it. In the early morning

hours of March 22, 2016, a burglar alarm was activated, a door Adams testified

he had locked was opened, and a computer was taken. A window next to the

building’s door had been broken, and the hole in the glass was large enough for

a person’s arm to reach through and unlock and open the door from the inside.

The glass around the hole had blood on it. That blood was tested, and the

DNA results indicated that only one in seven trillion persons could carry that

Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 71A05-1611-CR-2674 | March 21, 2017 Page 5 of 7

DNA—in other words, the DNA results statistically excluded every person

except Martin. The trial court could reasonably infer that Martin broke the

glass, reached his arm through the glass, opened the door, and entered the

building. That Martin testified at trial that he was present at the scene to

investigate what happened did not require that the trial court accept his

testimony as true, and we decline Martin’s invitation to reweigh the evidence in

this respect.2 [18] Martin also argues that there was insufficient evidence of intent to commit

theft. “To establish the intent to commit a felony element of a burglary charge,

the State must prove beyond a reasonable doubt the defendant’s intent to

commit a felony specified in the charge.” Freshwater v. State, 853 N.E.2d 941,

942 (Ind. 2006). Evidence of breaking and entering is not probative unless tied

to some other evidence which is strongly corroborative of the actor’s intent. Id.

(citations omitted). [19] Here, Martin contends the State did not provide sufficient evidence to establish

the intent to commit theft—indeed, Martin insists “[t]here is no evidence that

Martin intended to commit a theft.” (Appellant’s Br. at 11.) We again disagree

with Martin’s argument. Notably, Adams testified that a computer that cost

2 We note in this regard that the statement of facts in Martin’s brief presents the evidence that favors Martin’s account of events on March 22, 2016, not those that favor the judgment as required by our Appellate Rules, and we remind counsel of this requirement. See Ind. Appellate Rule 46(A)(6)(b) (providing that “[t]he facts shall be stated in accordance with the standard of review appropriate to the judgment or order being appealed”).

Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 71A05-1611-CR-2674 | March 21, 2017 Page 6 of 7

him around $2000, with that value exclusive of software and copies of much of

his digital artwork, was taken during the burglary. The trial court was entitled

to conclude that the apparent commission of theft at the same time as the

occurrence of a break-in was sufficient to establish the intent element of the

Burglary charge. We accordingly conclude that there was sufficient evidence to

sustain the conviction. [20] Affirmed.

Najam, J., and May, J., concur.

Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 71A05-1611-CR-2674 | March 21, 2017 Page 7 of 7