Jerrin Alan Staker 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 Jun 23 2020, 9:33 am court except for the purpose of establishing CLERK the defense of res judicata, collateral Indiana Supreme Court Court of Appeals estoppel, or the law of the case. and Tax Court

ATTORNEY FOR APPELLANT ATTORNEY FOR APPELLEE Shawn N. Rountree Curtis T. Hill, Jr. Frankfort, Indiana Attorney General of Indiana Samuel J. Dayton Deputy Attorney General Indianapolis, Indiana

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA

Jerrin Alan Staker, June 23, 2020 Appellant-Defendant, Court of Appeals Case No. 19A-CR-1159 v. Appeal from the Clinton Circuit Court State of Indiana, The Honorable Appellee-Plaintiff. Bradley K. Mohler, Judge Trial Court Cause No. 12C01-1711-F6-1210

Kirsch, Judge. Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 19A-CR-1159 | June 23, 2020 Page 1 of 7 [1] Jerrin Alan Staker (“Staker”) was convicted after a jury trial of escape 1 as a

Level 6 felony, pleaded guilty to being a habitual offender,2 and was sentenced

to 365 days for the escape conviction, enhanced by 730 days for the habitual

offender adjudication, all executed. Staker appeals his conviction for escape,

arguing that the State failed to present sufficient evidence to support his

conviction. [2] We affirm.

Facts and Procedural History [3] On August 31, 2016, Staker was sentenced to 912 days after being convicted of

Level 5 felony battery resulting in serious bodily injury in cause number 12C01-

1509-F3-896 (“Cause 896”). State’s Ex. 1; Appellant’s App. Vol. 2 at 88. In

sentencing Staker in Cause 896, the trial court ordered that he was permitted to

serve the final 182 days of his sentence on home detention through community

corrections if accepted and approved by Clinton County Community

Corrections. State’s Ex. 1; Appellant’s App. Vol. 2 at 88. The trial court’s jail

order, which was incorporated into the final sentencing order, specifically

stated, “community corrections is authorized on standard terms . . . .” State’s Ex.

1 (emphasis added); Appellant’s App. Vol. 2 at 89. The community corrections

rules and regulations of Clinton County are reviewed annually by an advisory

1 See Ind. Code § 35-44.1-3-4(b). 2 See Ind. Code § 35-50-2-8.

Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 19A-CR-1159 | June 23, 2020 Page 2 of 7

board that includes, among other people, “both judges” in Clinton County. Tr.

Vol. 2 at 29-30. [4] On September 19, 2017, Staker signed the Clinton County Community

Corrections Adult Home Detention Rules and Regulations, agreeing to abide

by the rules and regulations of the Clinton County community corrections

home detention program. State’s Ex. 3. By signing this form, Staker

acknowledged that if he failed to comply with the conditions in the agreement,

his home detention could be revoked and his suspended sentence imposed and

that “[v]iolation of the order for home detention may subject [him] to

prosecution for the crime of escape under [Indiana Code section] 35-44.1-3-4.”

Id. He also agreed to the following rules and regulations, which were both

written and read aloud to Staker:

10. I understand and agree not to possess or consume any alcoholic beverage, illegal or illicit drugs or controlled substances or over the counter drugs containing alcohol, except as prescribed by a licensed physician. . . .

....

13. I understand that I must obey all the laws of the local, state, and federal government. Failure to do so may result in a violation.

Id.; Tr. Vol. 2 at 29, 38.

Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 19A-CR-1159 | June 23, 2020 Page 3 of 7 [5] Staker submitted to his first drug screen as required by the agreement on

September 26, 2017 and produced a negative result. Tr. Vol. 2 at 35. During

October 2017, Staker failed to report for four drug screens. Id. On October 26,

2017, he did report for a urine drug screen, in which he tested positive for

methamphetamine. State’s Ex. 2. After Staker tested positive for

methamphetamine, a Clinton County community corrections case manager

spoke with him in person about the results, and Staker admitted to the case

manager that he had used methamphetamine. Tr. Vol. 2 at 36. [6] On November 3, 2017, a notice of violation of term of community corrections

was filed in Cause 896, alleging that Staker had tested positive for

methamphetamine and that he had admitted to ingesting methamphetamine

when confronted with the results of the drug screen. State’s Ex. 2; Tr. Vol. 2 at

23, 25. On November 9, 2017, Staker appeared in front of the trial court for the

violation and admitted to the violation. Tr. Vol. 2 at 25, 28-29. [7] On November 7, 2017, the State charged Staker with Level 6 felony escape

under cause number 12C01-1711-F6-1210. Appellant’s App. Vol. 2 at 12. On

January 31, 2019, the State filed a motion for leave to file a habitual offender

sentencing enhancement, which the trial court granted the same day. Id. at 24,

27-28. A jury trial was held on April 1, 2019. Id. at 8, 73-75. While the jury

deliberated on the escape charge, Staker pleaded guilty to being a habitual

offender, and the trial court took the plea under advisement pending the jury’s

verdict. Id. at 73-75. After deliberations, the jury found Staker guilty of Level 6

felony escape. Id. at 73-75, 79. On April 25, 2019, the trial court sentenced

Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 19A-CR-1159 | June 23, 2020 Page 4 of 7

Staker to 365 days for the escape conviction, enhanced by 730 days for the

habitual offender adjudication, all executed. Id. at 80-81. Staker now appeals.

Discussion and Decision [8] Staker appeals his conviction for escape as a Level 6 felony, challenging the

sufficiency of the evidence showing that he violated a home detention order.

Specifically, Staker maintains that the home detention rules and regulations that

he agreed to abide by on September 19, 2017 were not “a home detention order

as described in [Indiana Code section] 35-44.1-3-4(b).” Appellant’s Br. at 9.

Staker contends that the State only proved a violation of home detention rules

and regulations, and he asserts that, as a matter of statutory interpretation,

those home detention rules and regulations are not, by themselves, a home

detention order. However, as the State correctly urges in its response to

Staker’s contention, we need not address that question of statutory

interpretation because the trial court’s order sentencing Staker to home

detention in Cause 896 obligated him to comply with the rules and regulations

of community corrections and home detention. State’s Ex. 1; Appellant’s App.

Vol. 2 at 89. [9] When we review the sufficiency of evidence to support a conviction, we do not

reweigh the evidence or assess the credibility of the witnesses. Lehman v. State,

55 N.E.3d 863, 868 (Ind. Ct. App. 2016), trans. denied. We consider only the

evidence most favorable to the trial court’s ruling and the reasonable inferences

that can be drawn from that evidence. Lock v. State, 971 N.E.2d 71, 74 (Ind.

Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 19A-CR-1159 | June 23, 2020 Page 5 of 7

2012). We also consider conflicting evidence in the light most favorable to the

trial court’s ruling. Oster v. State, 992 N.E.2d 871, 875 (Ind. Ct. App. 2013),

trans. denied. A conviction will be affirmed if there is substantial evidence of

probative value such that a reasonable trier of fact could have concluded the

defendant was guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. Wolf v. State, 76 N.E.3d 911,

915 (Ind. Ct. App. 2017). [10] Here, Staker was convicted of Level 6 felony escape. In order to prove that he

committed the offense, the State was required to prove beyond a reasonable

doubt that he “knowingly or intentionally violate[d] a home detention order or

intentionally remove[d] an electronic monitoring device or GPS tracking device

. . . .” Ind. Code § 35-44.1-3-4(b). [11] The order sentencing Staker stated that he was permitted to serve the final 182

days of his sentence in Cause 896 in the community corrections program “on

standard terms.” State’s Ex. 1.3 The director of the Clinton County community

corrections program testified at Staker’s trial that “both judges” are included on

an advisory board that approves the home detention rules and regulations. Tr.

Vol. 2 at 19, 30. He also testified that the rule against consuming illicit or illegal

substances was specifically set out in the home detention rules and regulations.

Id. at 29-30. Methamphetamine is an “illegal drug.” See Ind. Code § 35-48-4-

3 This statement was contained in the jail order issued on August 31, 2017. State’s Ex. 1. On the same date, the trial court issued a sentencing order, which contained the statement, “[T]he Court incorporates all other terms and conditions contained in the Jail Order.” Appellant’s App. Vol. 2 at 89.

Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 19A-CR-1159 | June 23, 2020 Page 6 of 7

6.1 (prohibiting possession of methamphetamine); Tr. Vol. 2 at 30. Given the

evidence presented, the jury could reasonably have concluded that the use of

the words “standard terms” contained in the sentencing order, see State’s Ex. 1,

included the home detention rules and regulations, which had been judicially

approved, and that Staker was required to follow such rules and regulations as

part of being allowed to serve time on home detention. Before Staker began his

home detention, he signed the home detention rules and regulations and agreed

to abide by them. By doing so, he was agreeing to the home detention rules

and regulations, which had been ordered by the trial court, and these home

detention rules and regulations prohibited him from consuming illegal drugs or

otherwise violating the law. It was, therefore, reasonable for the jury to find

that Staker had violated a home detention order when he violated the home

detention rules and regulations by consuming methamphetamine. We conclude

that the State presented sufficient evidence to prove that Staker knowingly or

intentionally violated a home detention order and to support his conviction for

Level 6 felony escape. [12] Affirmed.

Najam, J., and Brown, J., concur.

Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 19A-CR-1159 | June 23, 2020 Page 7 of 7