Opinion
No. 49A05-1101-CR-12
09-09-2011
SHYREETA R. MEMBERS, Appellant-Defendant, v. STATE OF INDIANA, Appellee-Plaintiff.
ATTORNEY FOR APPELLANT : DAVID BECSEY Zeigler Cohen & Koch Indianapolis, Indiana ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE : GREGORY F. ZOELLER Attorney General of Indiana J.T. WHITEHEAD Deputy Attorney General Indianapolis, Indiana
Pursuant to Ind. Appellate Rule 65(D), this
Memorandum Decision shall not be
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:
DAVID BECSEY
Zeigler Cohen & Koch
Indianapolis, Indiana
ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE:
GREGORY F. ZOELLER
Attorney General of Indiana
J.T. WHITEHEAD
Deputy Attorney General
Indianapolis, Indiana
APPEAL FROM THE MARION SUPERIOR COURT
The Honorable Reuben B. Hill, Judge
Cause No. 49F18-0909-FD-82307
MEMORANDUM DECISION - NOT FOR PUBLICATION
BAKER , Judge
Appellant-defendant Shyreeta R. Members appeals her convictions for Theft, a class D felony, challenging the sufficiency of the evidence. Specifically, Members argues that the evidence merely showed that she had the opportunity to commit theft. Finding sufficient evidence, we affirm.
FACTS
On September 20, 2009, Members and a female friend entered a Family Dollar store in Indianapolis managed by Christina Peterson. The two women split up as they entered the store. Members carried an unusually large and empty purse, which drew Peterson's attention. Peterson watched Members pick out a package of womens undergarments and several Johnson & Johnson products.
Peterson then went to a backroom of the store and observed Members on closed-circuit television security cameras. Peterson saw Members take a Gain fabric softener product and place it in her purse. Immediately, Peterson dialed 911 to report a theft in progress. Members next selected and put light bulbs and Pine-Sol into her purse. Peterson left the backroom for the sales floor to alert the cashier as to what she had observed. At that time, Peterson saw Members place body wash and a loofa into her purse.
Members, now joined by her friend, went to the cashier, and she presented and paid for only a set of paper plates. Both women then left the store. Peterson again called 911 to alert police that the two women had left the store and provided a description of the vehicle they drove.
Officer Nathan Schmidt was the first police officer to respond and located a car that matched Peterson's description. Officer Schmidt conducted a traffic stop, and observed that Members was a passenger in the front seat of the vehicle. Officer Schmidt observed a bag of merchandise in the back seat containing laundry detergent, soaps, and body wash. Police officers transported Peterson to the location of the traffic stop where she recalled the items that Members had taken from the store. The list matched the items that officers found in the bag in the rear seat of the vehicle. Members was arrested and charged with theft.
Following a bench trial on November 30, 2010, the court found Members guilty as charged. Members was sentenced to 545 days in the Department of Correction with 275 days suspended. Members now appeals.
DISCUSSION AND DECISION
In addressing Members's challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence, we will neither reweigh the evidence nor judge the credibility of witnesses. Drane v. State, 867 N.E.2d 144, 146 (Ind. 2007). Rather, a reviewing court considers "'only the probative evidence and reasonable inferences supporting the verdict.'" Id. (quoting McHenry v. State, 820 N.E.2d 124, 126 (Ind. 2005)). The conviction will be affirmed "unless 'no reasonable fact-finder could find the elements of the crime proven beyond a reasonable doubt.'" Id. at 146-47 (quoting Jenkins v. State, 726 N.E.2d 268, 270 (Ind. 2000)). To convict Members of class D felony theft, the State was required to prove that Members "knowingly or intentionally exert[ed] unauthorized control over property of another person, with intent to deprive the other person of any part of its value or use." Ind. Code § 35-43-4-2(a).
Here, Peterson testified at trial that she directly and on store security camera video observed Members place specific merchandise into Members's purse. Tr. p. 14-15, 21-23. She then saw Members pay for a set of paper plates and leave the store without paying for the items she placed in her purse. Id. at 23. When police officers stopped the vehicle in which Members was a passenger, they recovered the merchandise that Peterson had reported to the police as stolen. Id. at 43-47. From these facts and circumstances, a reasonable fact finder could have found Members guilty of theft beyond a reasonable doubt.
The judgment of the trial court is affirmed. KIRSCH, J., and BROWN, J., concur.