Wilson v. State

221 N.E.3d 667

Ricky L. WILSON, Appellant-Defendant,

v.STATE of Indiana, Appellee-Plaintiff.

Court of Appeals Case No. 22A-CR-2837

Court of Appeals of Indiana.

Filed September 27, 2023

Attorney for Appellant: Christopher Kunz, Marion County Public Defender, Indianapolis, Indiana

Attorneys for Appellee: Theodore E. Rokita, Attorney General of Indiana, Steven J. Hosler, Deputy Attorney General, Indianapolis, Indiana

Tavitas, Judge.

Case Summary

[1] Ricky Wilson was convicted of criminal recklessness, a Level 5 felony; escape, a Level 6 felony; and possession of cocaine, a Level 6 felony. The trial court sentenced Wilson to four years executed and one year suspended to probation. Wilson appeals and claims that the State failed to present sufficient evidence to support his convictions and that his sentence is inappropriate. We disagree and, accordingly, affirm.

Issues

[2] Wilson presents three issues, which we restate as:

I. Whether the State presented evidence that Wilson was subject to a home detention order and knowingly violated the terms of that order sufficient to support a conviction for escape.

II. Whether the State presented evidence that Wilson constructively possessed cocaine found in Wilson's home sufficient to support his conviction for possession of cocaine.

III. Whether Wilson's sentence of four years executed and one year suspended to probation is inappropriate in light of the nature of Wilson's offenses and Wilson's character.

Facts

[3] On the evening of May 23, 2021, Neurin Barraza had a cookout in the backyard of her home in Indianapolis. After the cookout, at around 10:00 p.m., Barraza went back outside and saw a man, later identified as her next-door neighbor, Wilson, lying on the ground. Barraza asked Wilson who he was, but Wilson was unresponsive. When Wilson stood up, she called for her sister to bring a gun. Several members of Barraza's family came outside, armed with guns. Wilson stated, "Don't shoot," and identified himself to Barraza as her "neighbor, Ricky." Tr. Vol. II p. 46. Wilson held a firearm in one hand and his phone in the other.

[4] Wilson claimed that he had followed someone from Wilson's yard, through Barraza's yard, and into the yard of Barraza's neighbor on the other side. Barraza and her family spent several minutes attempting to find this person but were unsuccessful. Barraza noticed that Wilson appeared to be under the influence of an illicit substance and was "twe[a]king."¹ Id. at 48. Barraza's daughter observed that Wilson was wearing an ankle monitor. Barraza and her family then went back inside Barraza's house, and Barraza went to sleep. Wilson, however, continued to search for the man he claimed had been in their yards.

[5] At around 2:30 a.m., Barraza received a telephone call from Wilson, who informed her that people were outside both of their homes. Barraza looked outside and saw no one, so she went back to bed. Wilson called her again and said that there were twenty-five people surrounding their homes. Barraza again looked outside and saw no one. She told Wilson that no one was outside and went back to bed. Later, Barraza heard what she thought was someone setting off fireworks outside.

[6] Meanwhile, starting shortly before midnight, Wilson had been repeatedly calling 911. Ultimately, he called 911 a total of fourteen times. At first, no officers were dispatched due to the frequency of the calls. At 3:00 a.m. that morning, Wilson called 911 and stated that twenty-five people were outside his home attempting to set it on fire and that he had fired a shot at one of the people. The record does not reflect how many times the police went to Wilson's home that night in response to his many calls.

[7] Then, at around 10:00 a.m., Indianapolis Metropolitan Police Department ("IMPD") Officer Ryan Duell responded to yet another 911 call from Wilson, this time for a burglary in progress. When Officer Duell arrived at Wilson's home, Wilson told him that someone was inside the garage. Officer Duell checked the garage but found no one there. Noting that Wilson had made repeated calls to 911 and made apparently unfounded claims, Officer Duell requested someone from IMPD's mobile crisis team, known as "MCAT," come and talk with Wilson. Tr. Vol. II p. 27. MCAT officers "respond to in-crisis runs where someone may be in some type of psychiatric duress and attempt to engage these people and get them involved in services." Id. MCAT Detective Robert Robinson came to Wilson's home to speak with him. Detective Robinson noted that Wilson's speech was "rapid and pressured," which indicated to him that Wilson was experiencing a type of mania caused by mental illness or drug use. Id. at 30. Detective Robinson offered to refer Wilson to mental health services, but Wilson declined.

[8] While the police were still speaking with Wilson, Barraza was awakened by her sister yelling that someone had fired a bullet into the house. Barraza's sister found a 9mm bullet lodged in a box in the laundry room. Upon further investigation, Barraza and her sister found a bullet hole in the wall of the bathroom next to the laundry room and a bullet hole in the bathroom door. Barraza went outside and saw a bullet hole in the exterior wall of her house on the side that faced Wilson's house. Barraza approached Detective Robinson and informed him of the bullet hole in her wall. When Detective Robinson inspected the hole in Barraza's wall, he noticed a hole in one of the windows of Wilson's home on the side facing Barraza's house.

[9] Detective Robinson called for additional officers. When they arrived, Wilson permitted the police to search his house. One of the officers, Detective Romeo Joson, saw that Wilson was wearing an ankle monitor. Inside, the police saw a bullet hole in the window facing Barraza's home. There was also a bullet lodged in the wall. The police also observed smoking pipes with steel wool filters connected to the pipes. Under the couch cushions, the police found a clear plastic bag containing a white crystalline substance that was later determined to contain cocaine. No one else was found in the home. The police did not locate a firearm, but when the police patted Wilson down, they found a spent 9mm shell casing in his pocket. The police learned that Wilson was serving a sentence on home detention.

[10] On May 27, 2021, the State charged Wilson with: Count I, possession of a firearm by a serious violent felon, a Level 4 felony; Count II, criminal recklessness, a Level 5 felony; Count III, escape, a Level 6 felony; Count IV, possession of cocaine, a Level 6 felony; Count V, unlawful possession of a firearm by a domestic batterer, a Class A misdemeanor; and Count VI, possession of paraphernalia, a Class C misdemeanor.

[11] A jury trial was held on August 2, 2022. The jury found Wilson guilty of escape and possession of cocaine but acquitted him of possession of paraphernalia. The jury was unable to reach a verdict on the remaining counts. On October 18, 2022, Wilson entered into a plea agreement with the State in which he agreed to plead guilty to criminal recklessness; in exchange, the State dismissed the counts of unlawful possession of a firearm by a serious violent felon and unlawful possession of a firearm by a domestic batterer.

[12] On October 31, 2022, the trial court sentenced Wilson on the criminal recklessness conviction to five years, with one year suspended to probation. The trial court also sentenced Wilson to concurrent one-year sentences on the escape and possession of cocaine convictions, both of which were suspended to probation. Wilson now appeals.

Discussion and Decision

I. Sufficient Evidence

[13] Wilson claims that the State failed to present sufficient evidence to support his convictions for escape and possession of cocaine. "Claims of insufficient evidence ‘warrant a deferential standard, in which we neither reweigh the evidence nor judge witness credibility.’ " Stubbers v. State , 190 N.E.3d 424, 429 (Ind. Ct. App. 2022) (quoting Powell v. State , 151 N.E.3d 256, 262 (Ind. 2020) ), trans. denied. On appeal, "[w]e consider only the evidence supporting the judgment and any reasonable inferences drawn from that evidence." Id. (citing Powell , 151 N.E.3d at 262 ). " ‘We will affirm a conviction if there is substantial evidence of probative value that would lead a reasonable trier of fact to conclude that the defendant was guilty beyond a reasonable doubt,’ " and we will affirm a conviction " ‘unless no reasonable fact-finder could find the elements of the crime proven beyond a reasonable doubt." Id. (citing Powell , 151 N.E.3d at 262 ). Thus, it is not necessary that the evidence overcome every reasonable hypothesis of innocence; instead, the evidence is sufficient if an inference may reasonably be drawn from it to support the verdict. Id. (citing Drane v. State , 867 N.E.2d 144, 146-47 (Ind. 2007) ; Sutton v. State , 167 N.E.3d 800, 801 (Ind. Ct. App. 2021) )

A. Escape

[14] Wilson first argues that the State failed to present sufficient evidence to support his conviction for escape. To convict Wilson of escape as charged, the State was required to prove that Wilson: "knowingly or intentionally violate[d] a home detention order, to-wit: by possessing a firearm and/or cocaine." Appellant's App. Vol. II pp. 28-29; see also Ind. Code § 35-44.1-3-4(b) (2014) ("A person who knowingly or intentionally violates a home detention order ... commits escape, a Level 6 felony.").²

[15] Wilson argues that the State failed to prove that he violated a home detention order because "the State presented no evidence that a valid home detention order was ever issued against Wilson." Appellant's Br. p. 15. We disagree. Detective Joson testified that Wilson was on home detention at the time of the shooting and that Wilson was serving a "home detention sentence." Tr. Vol. II p. 138. Detective Joson also saw that Wilson was wearing an ankle monitor. From this, the jury could reasonably conclude that Wilson was...