John F. Jachimiak v. State of Indiana (mem. dec.)

MEMORANDUM DECISION FILED Pursuant to Ind. Appellate Rule 65(D), Aug 05 2020, 9:26 am

this Memorandum Decision shall not be CLERK Indiana Supreme Court regarded as precedent or cited before any Court of Appeals and Tax Court 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 Sally Skodinski Curtis T. Hill, Jr. South Bend, Indiana Attorney General of Indiana Evan Matthew Comer Deputy Attorney General Anthony Smith Certified Legal Intern Indianapolis, Indiana

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA

John F. Jachimiak, August 5, 2020 Appellant-Defendant, Court of Appeals Case No. 20A-CR-416 v. Appeal from the St. Joseph Superior Court State of Indiana, The Honorable Elizabeth Hardtke, Appellee-Plaintiff. Magistrate Trial Court Cause No. 71D02-1909-CM-3374

Mathias, Judge. Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 20A-CR-416 | August 5, 2020 Page 1 of 5 [1] John F. Jachimiak appeals from a judgment of the St. Joseph Superior Court,

arguing that insufficient evidence supports his conviction for criminal mischief,

a Class B misdemeanor. Concluding that the evidence is sufficient to support

his conviction, we affirm.

Facts and Procedural History [2] The events leading to Jachimiak’s conviction for criminal mischief were

precipitated by the end of his long-term relationship with Amelia Lazaro. The

two had been engaged to be married for eight years and, since 2016, had lived

together in a single-family home that Lazaro rented in St. Joseph County. In

early 2016, Lazaro signed a one-year lease with property owner Liem Vu.

Jachimiak did not sign the lease, but he lived there with the permission of both

Vu and Lazaro and contributed to the security deposit, rent and utilities. [3] When Lazaro’s one-year lease expired, she and Vu verbally agreed that the

lease would continue as a month-to-month tenancy. Two years passed under

this arrangement, during which Lazaro, Jachimiak, and various roommates

lived in the residence. Lazaro remained the only tenant named in the lease. [4] Jachimiak and Lazaro ended their relationship in September 2019. Shortly after

Jachimiak moved out and returned his keys, he returned to the residence in the

middle of the night. Angry and locked out, Jachimiak yelled obscenities at

Lazaro and her roommate and tried to kick in the front door. He did the same

to the back door and refused Lazaro’s demands to leave. St. Joseph County

Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 20A-CR-416 | August 5, 2020 Page 2 of 5

police officers responded to the disturbance and arrested Jachimiak. An officer

observed damage to the property’s front and back doors. [5] The State charged Jachimiak with criminal mischief, a Class B misdemeanor,

on September 30, 2019. During the bench trial, Lazaro and Vu testified to the

damage Jachimiak caused at the residence, which required Vu to replace one

door in its entirety. Jachimiak admitted to kicking and damaging the doors and

was subsequently found guilty as charged on January 24, 2020. This appeal

followed.

Discussion and Decision [6] Our standard of review for claims of insufficient evidence is well settled. We

consider only the probative evidence and reasonable inferences therefrom that

support the trial court’s judgment. Drane v. State, 867 N.E.2d 144, 146 (Ind.

2007). We do not reweigh the evidence or judge witness credibility, and we will

affirm the conviction unless no reasonable fact finder could find the elements of

the crime proven beyond a reasonable doubt. Sallee v. State, 777 N.E.2d 1204,

1208 (Ind. Ct. App. 2002), trans. denied. [7] A person commits Class B criminal mischief when he “recklessly, knowingly,

or intentionally damages or defaces property of another person without the

other person’s consent.” Ind. Code § 35-43-1-2(a). “Property is that ‘of another

person’ if the other person has a possessory or proprietary interest in it, even if

an accused person also has an interest in that property.” I.C. § 35-31.5-2-253(b).

Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 20A-CR-416 | August 5, 2020 Page 3 of 5 [8] Jachimiak argues that there is insufficient evidence to support his conviction for

criminal mischief because the State failed to prove that he damaged the

“property of another person.” I.C. § 35-43-1-2(a). Jachimiak contends that he

owned the property that he damaged. Appellant’s Br. p. 7. Yet he concedes

that Vu is “the property owner.” Id. at 8. Nevertheless, Jachimiak insists that

his conviction for criminal mischief cannot stand because he had Vu’s

permission to be at the property; because he contributed to the security deposit,

rent and utilities at the property; and because some of his personal effects

remained at the property. Id. [9] That Vu is the owner of the property whose doors were damaged by

Jachimiak’s actions is the only reasonable conclusion to be drawn from the

evidence presented. Vu testified that he owned the property. He explained that

he expected his renters, including Jachimiak, to be on the property but that

Jachimiak did not have permission to damage any part of the property. Vu said

that he repaired the damaged doors using the security deposit and that no

additional funds were needed to repair the damage.

Conclusion [10] Jachimiak’s appeal is a thinly veiled request that this Court reweigh the

evidence, which we will not do. The State presented sufficient evidence of

Jachimiak’s late-night return to the property that Lazaro rented from property

owner Vu. Jachimiak does not dispute that he caused damage to the doors.

Accordingly, we affirm Jachimiak’s conviction for Class B misdemeanor

criminal mischief. Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 20A-CR-416 | August 5, 2020 Page 4 of 5

[11] Affirmed.

Bradford, C.J., and Najam, J., concur.

Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 20A-CR-416 | August 5, 2020 Page 5 of 5