Menefee v. State, 280S31

• Citation: 417 N.E.2d 302,275 Ind. 390
• Decision Date: 09 March 1981
• Docket Number: No. 280S31,280S31
• Parties: Wayde M. MENEFEE, Appellant, v. STATE of Indiana, Appellee.
• Court: Indiana Supreme Court

Page 302

417 N.E.2d 302

275 Ind. 390

Wayde M. MENEFEE, Appellant, v. STATE of Indiana, Appellee.

No. 280S31.

Supreme Court of Indiana.

March 9, 1981.

John F. Subreck, Deputy Public Defender, Fort Wayne, for appellant.

Linley E. Pearson, Atty. Gen., Wesley T. Wilson, Deputy Atty. Gen., Indianapolis, for appellee.

DeBRULER, Justice.

In this case Wayde M. Menefee appeals from a conviction for burglary which resulted in a sentence of ten years which the judge ordered served consecutively to a sentence of two to five years meted out in another case. This appeal does not satisfy the jurisdictional prerequisites of Ind.R.App.P. 4(A)(7) in that there has been here no single sentence imposing a minimum greater than ten years. However, we exercise our inherent judicial authority and retain this case for disposition on the merits.

The gravamen of the offense was that appellant broke into the house of Leon Mauricio in Allen County, Indiana and stole a number of guns and a gold watch. He contends in this appeal that the evidence was insufficient to support the jury verdict in that the central part of it came from one who had participated in the crime and the testimony of this person was given in return for a promise by the prosecutor to recommend a suspended sentence for her on a like charge arising out of the same incident, and such testimony was fraught with inconsistencies. In determining this question we do not weigh the evidence nor resolve questions of credibility but look to the evidence and reasonable inferences therefrom which support the verdict. Smith v. State, (1970) 254 Ind. 401, 260 N.E.2d 558. The conviction will be affirmed if from that viewpoint there is evidence of probative value from which a reasonable trier of fact could infer that appellant was guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. Glover v. State, (1970) 253 Ind. 536, 255 N.E.2d 657.

According to the testimony of the accomplice Sarah Jennings, she planned the burglary. She knew that Mauricio had a number of guns in his house and she wanted one to pass to a boyfriend to aid him in an attempt to escape from jail. She persuaded appellant to break into the house and steal a gun for her. Jennings drove past the house in her blue Maverick a couple of times to check it out, and then dropped appellant off there and drove around the block, stopping once and lifting the lid of her car trunk. Five to ten minutes later she drove back to the house and appellant came out carrying a number of guns and a gold watch. Together they left in the Maverick.

Two neighbors of Mauricio testified at trial that they had observed Jennings and a man in and about a blue Maverick in their area at the time established for the burglary. One testified that she observed Jennings get out of the car and open the trunk lid and saw only one person a man come running out of the house and get in the car.

Jennings made a full disclosure of the plea bargain she had made with the State before the jury. She testified that she had entered a plea of guilty to a charge of burglary at the Mauricio home and in exchange for a recommendation of a suspended sentence by the prosecution agreed to testify against appellant.

A police officer testified that upon his request Jennings procured and turned over to him a weapon identified as one stolen from the Mauricio residence.

In questioning the nature of the Jennings testimony appellant relies upon Newman v. State, (1975) 263 Ind. 569, 334 N.E.2d 684, wherein w...