MEMORANDUM DECISION
ON REHEARING
FILED
Pursuant to Ind. Appellate Rule 65(D), this
Jan 24 2018, 6:32 am
Memorandum Decision shall not be
regarded as precedent or cited before any CLERK
Indiana Supreme Court
court except for the purpose of establishing Court of Appeals
and Tax Court
the defense of res judicata, collateral
estoppel, or the law of the case.
ATTORNEY FOR APPELLANT ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE
Kristina L. Lynn Curtis T. Hill, Jr.
Lynn and Stein, P.C. Attorney General of Indiana
Wabash, Indiana Katherine Cooper
Deputy Attorney General
Indianapolis, Indiana
IN THE
COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA
Kenny Purvis, January 24, 2018
Appellant-Defendant, Court of Appeals Cause No.
09A02-1702-CR-454
v. Appeal from the Cass Superior
Court
State of Indiana, The Honorable Richard A.
Appellee-Plaintiff Maughmer, Judge
Trial Court Cause No.
09D02-1506-F5-53
Baker, Judge.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Mem. Dec. on Rehearing 09A02-1702-CR-454 | January 24, 2018 Page 1 of 3
[1] Kenny Purvis has filed a petition for rehearing, which we grant in part for the
limited purpose of addressing the first issue he raises.
[2] Purvis argues that we relied on mistaken statements of fact when we affirmed
his conviction. His material claims are summarized as follows:
• The video footage from May 9, 15, and 19, 2015, does not show Purvis
himself taking video games from the shelves, concealing them in the cart,
or pushing the cart.
• On May 9, 2015, Purvis is not present when the cart is taken to the sports
aisle and on May 15, 2015, Purvis is not the last person seen with the
concealed video games walking toward the hardware section.
• Purvis is not with other members of the group when the group is in the
cell phone aisle on May 9, 2015, nor when they return to Walmart for
the second time on May 15, 2015.
[3] Even if Purvis accurately describes the video footage, the end result is the same.
Amy Powers testified that Purvis’s truck was red with black racing stripes. Tr.
Vol. II p. 102. Brady Herrington testified that on May 9, 2015, Purvis and the
individuals who selected and concealed the cell phone and video games left
together in a red truck with black racing stripes. Id. at 52. Powers testified that
on May 15, 2015, the individuals (not including Purvis) who reentered the store
departed in a red truck with black racing stripes. Id. at 78. After being detained
on May 19, 2015, Purvis admitted to driving Adam Wakefield to Walmart; he
also conceded that he knew Wakefield was planning to steal that day. When
Purvis consented to a search of his vehicle, he led officers to a red truck with
black racing stripes, where they found eight stolen copies of a brand new video
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Mem. Dec. on Rehearing 09A02-1702-CR-454 | January 24, 2018 Page 2 of 3
game, released that same day. A reasonable factfinder could infer from these
facts that Purvis committed the crimes with which he was charged.
[4] Moreover, the record also supports a conclusion that Purvis acted as an
accomplice by knowingly or intentionally aiding, inducing, or causing another
person to commit the thefts. See Ind. Code § 35-41-2-4. Specifically, in addition
to the above stated facts, Purvis was with various members of this group in the
video game aisle on each day in question. Though he may not have physically
touched the games, a reasonable factfinder could easily conclude that he was
aware of the inordinate number of thefts occurring around him. Further,
regardless of who was pushing the cart, the group routinely split up after
visiting the video game aisle at the same time, even though many of them
shared transportation in Purvis’s truck. In short, even if Purvis did not commit
the thefts himself, he acted as an accomplice by knowingly or intentionally
aiding several of these group members in committing the thefts and, because
principals and accomplices are equally guilty, our decision will not change.
[5] Our original decision stands, and in all other respects, we deny Purvis’s petition
for rehearing.
Bailey, J., and Altice, J., concur.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Mem. Dec. on Rehearing 09A02-1702-CR-454 | January 24, 2018 Page 3 of 3