MEMORANDUM DECISION
FILED
Pursuant to Ind. Appellate Rule 65(D), Dec 16 2016, 8:41 am
this Memorandum Decision shall not be
regarded as precedent or cited before any CLERK
Indiana Supreme Court
Court of Appeals
court except for the purpose of establishing and Tax Court
the defense of res judicata, collateral
estoppel, or the law of the case.
ATTORNEY FOR APPELLANT ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE
Barbara Simmons Gregory F. Zoeller
Oldenburg, Indiana Attorney General of Indiana
Jesse R. Drum
Deputy Attorney General
Indianapolis, Indiana
IN THE
COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA
Anthony LeFlore, December 16, 2016
Appellant-Defendant, Court of Appeals Case No.
49A02-1603-CR-471
v. Appeal from the Marion Superior
Court
State of Indiana, The Honorable Amy M. Jones,
Appellee-Plaintiff. Judge
Trial Court Cause No.
49G08-1510-CM-35740
Barnes, Judge.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision [49A02-1603-CR-471 | December 16, 2016 Page 1 of 6
Case Summary
[1] Anthony LeFlore appeals his conviction for Class B misdemeanor possession of
marijuana. We affirm.
Issue
[2] LeFlore raises one issue, which we restate as whether the State presented
sufficient evidence to prove that he possessed marijuana.
Facts
[3] On October 7, 2015, Detective Craig McElfresh of the Indianapolis
Metropolitan Police Department was conducting surveillance of a residence
prior to executing a search warrant. Detective McElfresh observed LeFlore
leave the residence driving a Monte Carlo vehicle. LeFlore returned a few
minutes later and parked in the driveway next to the porch. LeFlore was sitting
on the front porch when the SWAT team executed the search warrant, and he
ran away. Detective McElfresh followed LeFlore and ordered him to get on the
ground, and LeFlore surrendered. LeFlore had the keys to the Monte Carlo
when he was detained. While Detective John Schweers was executing the
search warrant, he walked around the outside of the Monte Carlo and smelled a
strong odor of raw marijuana coming from the rear of the vehicle. He opened
the fuel hatch and found a bag of marijuana on top of the gas cap.
[4] The State charged LeFlore with Class B misdemeanor possession of marijuana.
After a bench trial, LeFlore was found guilty as charged. LeFlore now appeals.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision [49A02-1603-CR-471 | December 16, 2016 Page 2 of 6
Analysis
[5] LeFlore argues that the evidence was insufficient to show that he possessed the
marijuana. In reviewing the sufficiency of the evidence, we neither reweigh the
evidence nor judge the credibility of witnesses. Willis v. State, 27 N.E.3d 1065,
1066 (Ind. 2015). We only consider “the evidence supporting the judgment and
any reasonable inferences that can be drawn from such evidence.” Id. A
conviction will be affirmed if there is substantial evidence of probative value
supporting each element of the offense such that a reasonable trier of fact could
have found the defendant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. Id. “‘It is the job
of the fact-finder to determine whether the evidence in a particular case
sufficiently proves each element of an offense, and we consider conflicting
evidence most favorably to the trial court’s ruling.’” Id. at 1066-67 (quoting
Wright v. State, 828 N.E.2d 904, 906 (Ind. 2005)).
[6] LeFlore argues that the evidence was insufficient to prove that he possessed the
marijuana. See Ind. Code § 35-48-4-11(a). A conviction for possession of
contraband may rest upon proof of either actual or constructive possession.
Houston v. State, 997 N.E.2d 407, 409-10 (Ind. Ct. App. 2013). Actual
possession occurs when a person has direct physical control over the item. Id.
at 410. Because LeFlore did not have direct physical control over the
marijuana, the State had to prove that he had constructive possession of it. A
person constructively possesses contraband when the person has: (1) the
capability to maintain dominion and control over the item; and (2) the intent to
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision [49A02-1603-CR-471 | December 16, 2016 Page 3 of 6
maintain dominion and control over it. Gray v. State, 957 N.E.2d 171, 174 (Ind.
2011).
[7] “The capability prong may be satisfied by ‘proof of a possessory interest in the
premises in which illegal drugs are found.’” Houston, 997 N.E.2d at 410
(quoting Monroe v. State, 899 N.E.2d 688, 692 (Ind. Ct. App. 2009)). “This is so
regardless of whether the possession of the premises is exclusive or not.” Id.
The State presented evidence that LeFlore was seen driving the vehicle and had
the keys in his possession when he was detained. LeFlore parked the vehicle
next to the porch, where he was sitting when officers executed the search
warrant. LeFlore testified that the vehicle belonged to his mother and that
other people also drove it. However, it is unnecessary that the possession of the
vehicle be exclusive for the defendant to have the capability to maintain
dominion and control over the vehicle. The State presented sufficient evidence
to prove that LeFlore had the capability to maintain dominion and control over
the vehicle.
[8] With regard to the intent prong of the test, where a defendant’s possession of
the premises upon which contraband is found is not exclusive, the inference of
intent to maintain dominion and control over the drugs must be supported by
additional circumstances pointing to the defendant’s knowledge of the nature of
the controlled substances and their presence. Id. Those additional
circumstances include: (1) incriminating statements made by the defendant; (2)
attempted flight or furtive gestures; (3) location of substances like drugs in
settings that suggest manufacturing; (4) proximity of the contraband to the
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision [49A02-1603-CR-471 | December 16, 2016 Page 4 of 6
defendant; (5) location of the contraband within the defendant’s plain view; and
(6) the mingling of the contraband with other items owned by the defendant.
Id.
[9] LeFlore argues that the State failed to present any evidence that he had
knowledge of the marijuana on the gas cap. He points out that he made no
incriminating statements, that he was cooperative with the officers, and that he
was not in close proximity to the marijuana. He argues that the gas cap door
could have been opened by anyone. The State presented evidence that, during
their surveillance, the officers saw LeFlore driving the vehicle and did not see
anyone else in the vicinity of the Monte Carlo. LeFlore parked the vehicle right
next to the porch, where he was sitting. LeFlore fled the area when the officers
attempted to execute the search warrant.
[10] We conclude that the State presented sufficient evidence to demonstrate
LeFlore had the intent to maintain dominion and control over the marijuana.
LeFlore’s argument to the contrary is merely a request that we reweigh the
evidence, which we cannot do. The evidence is sufficient to demonstrate
LeFlore’s constructive possession of the marijuana. See Gray, 957 N.E.2d at
176 (holding that the evidence was sufficient to find the defendant
constructively possessed marijuana).
Conclusion
[11] The evidence is sufficient to sustain LeFlore’s conviction for Class B
misdemeanor possession of marijuana. We affirm.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision [49A02-1603-CR-471 | December 16, 2016 Page 5 of 6
[12] Affirmed.
Bailey, J., and Riley, J., concur.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision [49A02-1603-CR-471 | December 16, 2016 Page 6 of 6