MEMORANDUM DECISION
Pursuant to Ind. Appellate Rule 65(D), FILED
this Memorandum Decision shall not be Dec 12 2017, 8:40 am
regarded as precedent or cited before any CLERK
court except for the purpose of establishing Indiana Supreme Court
Court of Appeals
the defense of res judicata, collateral and Tax Court
estoppel, or the law of the case.
ATTORNEY FOR APPELLANT ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE
Darren Bedwell Curtis T. Hill, Jr.
Marion County Public Defender Attorney General of Indiana
Indianapolis, Indiana
Angela N. Sanchez
Supervising Deputy Attorney
General
Indianapolis, Indiana
IN THE
COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA
Leroy Washington, December 12, 2017
Appellant-Defendant, Court of Appeals Case No.
49A02-1707-CR-1665
v. Appeal from the Marion Superior
Court
State of Indiana, The Honorable Jose D. Salinas,
Appellee-Plaintiff. Judge
Trial Court Cause No.
49G14-1609-F6-37127
Najam, Judge.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 49A02-1707-CR-1665 | December 12, 2017 Page 1 of 5
Statement of the Case
[1] Leroy Washington appeals his conviction for dealing in marijuana, as a Level 6
felony, following a bench trial. He presents a single issue for our review,
namely, whether the State presented sufficient evidence to support that
conviction. We affirm.1
Facts and Procedural History
[2] On September 21, 2016, Washington was driving northbound on Sherman
Drive in Indianapolis. Indianapolis Metropolitan Police Department Officer
Christopher Rynard, driving his marked police vehicle, saw Washington
driving at a “pretty good speed” and decided to follow him. Tr. at 9. After
Washington suddenly turned in front of Marion County Sheriff’s Deputy Osnel
Andre’s vehicle and caused Deputy Andre to slam on his brakes and swerve to
avoid hitting oncoming traffic, Officer Rynard initiated a traffic stop of
Washington.
[3] When Officer Rynard approached Washington, who was the only occupant of
his car, he observed that Washington was nervous. Deputy Andre assisted in
the stop and stood next to the front passenger door while Officer Rynard talked
to Washington. Both Officer Rynard and Deputy Andre saw a backpack with a
distinctive white star pattern on it sitting in the front passenger seat. After
Officer Rynard checked Washington’s license on the computer in his police
1
Washington does not appeal his convictions for resisting law enforcement or obstruction of justice.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 49A02-1707-CR-1665 | December 12, 2017 Page 2 of 5
vehicle, Officer Rynard returned to Washington’s car and asked him to get out
of the car. Washington did not comply, but drove off. Officer Rynard and
Deputy Andre got back into their respective vehicles and chased after
Washington.
[4] Washington traveled approximately five or six blocks in about thirty seconds to
one minute before coming to a stop again. During the chase, Officer Rynard
and Deputy Andre lost sight of Washington for a short period of time. After
Washington was stopped, the officers placed him in handcuffs and patted him
down. The officers found $468 in different denominations in his pants pockets.
When Officer Rynard could not find the backpack in Washington’s car, he
asked Deputy Andre and other assisting law enforcement officers to look for it
along the route that Washington had traveled after the initial traffic stop.
Deputy Andre found the backpack on the side of the road along that route.
Deputy Andre smelled an odor of marijuana coming from the backpack. Inside
the backpack he found the following: a scale; a package of Swisher Sweets
cigars; empty baggies; baggies containing marijuana; a “skunk sack”;2 and two
broken jars containing marijuana. Id. at 21. The total amount of marijuana
was more than forty-six grams.
[5] The State charged Washington with resisting law enforcement, dealing in
marijuana, and obstruction of justice, each as a Level 6 felony. The trial court
2
A skunk sack is “a sack that’s supposed to hide the smell or odor of marijuana . . . so it doesn’t permeate
throughout the vehicle if you’re in a vehicle or throughout a house or a bag if you’re carrying it with you.”
Tr. at 45.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 49A02-1707-CR-1665 | December 12, 2017 Page 3 of 5
found him guilty on each count following a bench trial, entered judgment of
conviction, and sentenced him to an aggregate sentence of 730 days in
community corrections. This appeal ensued.
Discussion and Decision
[6] Washington contends that the State presented insufficient evidence to support
his dealing in marijuana conviction. In reviewing the sufficiency of the
evidence, we consider only the evidence and reasonable inferences most
favorable to the conviction, neither reweighing the evidence nor reassessing
witness credibility. Griffith v. State, 59 N.E.3d 947, 958 (Ind. 2016). We will
affirm the judgment unless no reasonable fact-finder could find the defendant
guilty. Id.
[7] To prove dealing in marijuana, as a Level 6 felony, the State was required to
show that Washington knowingly or intentionally possessed with the intent to
manufacture, finance the manufacture of, deliver or finance the delivery of
marijuana in an amount that weighed more than thirty grams but less than ten
pounds. See Ind. Code § 35-48-4-10 (2017). Washington’s sole contention on
appeal is that, because the legislature amended the dealing statute to require
“more evidence than the quantity of marijuana” to prove intent to deal, 3 the
State presented insufficient evidence here. Appellant’s Br. at 13. In particular,
3
To prove dealing in marijuana where the amount possessed is less than ten pounds, there must be
“evidence in addition to the weight of the drug that the person intended to manufacture, finance the
manufacture of, deliver, or finance the delivery of the drug.” I.C. § 35-48-4-10(b)(1).
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 49A02-1707-CR-1665 | December 12, 2017 Page 4 of 5
Washington maintains that the evidence of his intent to deal was “scant” as
compared to that in other cases where dealing convictions were upheld on
appeal. Id. We cannot agree.
[8] Because intent is a mental state, triers of fact generally must resort to the
reasonable inferences arising from the surrounding circumstances to determine
whether the requisite intent exists. McGuire v. State, 613 N.E.2d 861, 864 (Ind.
Ct. App. 1993), trans. denied. Circumstantial evidence of intent to deliver, such
as possession of a large quantity of drugs, large amounts of currency, scales,
plastic bags, and other paraphernalia can support a conviction. Id. Here, the
State presented more than just a large quantity of marijuana to prove
Washington’s intent to deal. In addition to the more than forty-six grams of
raw marijuana, officers found in Washington’s backpack a digital scale,
baggies, and a “skunk sack,” and they found on Washington’s person $468 in
cash in different denominations. That evidence is sufficient to support a
reasonable inference that Washington intended to deal the marijuana. The
State presented sufficient evidence to support the dealing in marijuana
conviction.
[9] Affirmed.
Mathias, J., and Barnes, J., concur.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 49A02-1707-CR-1665 | December 12, 2017 Page 5 of 5