State v. Heidbrink

• Decision Date: 06 February 2018
• Docket Number: No. ED 105385,ED 105385
• Citation: State v. Heidbrink, 546 S.W.3d 597 (Mo. App. 2018)
• Parties: STATE of Missouri, Plaintiff/Respondent, v. Gregory Alan HEIDBRINK, Defendant/Appellant.
• Court: Missouri Court of Appeals

546 S.W.3d 597

STATE of Missouri, Plaintiff/Respondent,

v.Gregory Alan HEIDBRINK, Defendant/Appellant.

No. ED 105385

Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District, DIVISION ONE.

Filed: February 6, 2018

Motion for Rehearing and/or Transfer to Supreme Court Denied March 22, 2018

Application for Transfer Denied May 22, 2018

Nathan J. Aquino, P.O. Box 899, Jefferson City, MO 65102, For Plaintiff/Respondent.

Kim C. Freter, 225 S. Meramec, Suite 1100, Clayton, MO 63105, For Defendant/Appellant.

SHERRI B. SULLIVAN, J.

Introduction

Gregory Alan Heidbrink(Appellant) appeals from the trial court’s judgment entered after a jury trial convicting him of receiving stolen property.We affirm in part, reverse in part, and remand for resentencing.

Factual and Procedural Background

The State charged Appellant, as a prior and persistent offender, with one count of receiving stolen property, a class C Felony, in violation of Section 570.080,¹ for events occurring on or about September 23, 2015.The evidence adduced at trial, viewed in the light most favorable to the verdict, is as follows.

In August 2015, Ronald Edwards(Edwards) owned AMG Auto Sales, located in Kansas City, Missouri.Around that time, Edwards purchased a 2004 Ford F250 Super Duty truck.The truck was charcoal gray with chrome trim and leather interior.Edwards testified the truck was in excellent condition, rated as a 3.7 out of 5.0.Edwards testified the retail value of the vehicle was $17,400 and that he listed the vehicle for sale on Craigslist for $13,900.

On August 25, 2015, Edwards noticed the truck was missing from AMG Auto Sales' lot and reported the truck stolen the next day.Edwards testified the truck was eventually returned to him and he found extensive damage to it, including impact damage on both the front and rear; almost the entire truck had been spray painted black; the four-wheel drive no longer worked; the front rotors, the parking brake, and the back tires required replacement; the steering column was completely destroyed; the ignition was punched out; and the back window was broken out and replaced with plexiglass.Edwards expended over $4,000 to repair the truck in his own shop and was eventually able to sell the truck for $11,000.

Sergeant Scott Taylor(Sgt. Taylor) of the Warren County Sheriff’s Department testified that around 10:00 p.m. on September 23, 2015, he was patrolling an undeveloped subdivision when he saw a black Ford F250 sitting at the end of the subdivision with the engine and the lights turned off.Sgt. Taylor saw a man and woman having intercourse in the passenger seat of the truck.When he approached, Appellant stepped out of the vehicle and the woman, subsequently identified as Appellant’s wife Jennifer Heidbrink(Wife), remained in the passenger seat.Appellant and Wife told Sgt. Taylor they were there to get "some alone time."

Sgt. Taylor asked Appellant and Wife for the truck’s paperwork, which they were unable to provide.Sgt. Taylor ran the license plate numbers, which came back as possibly stolen.Sgt. Taylor then ran the truck’s vehicle identification number, which came back as having been reported stolen from the Kansas City area.Sgt. Taylor arrested both Appellant and Wife.

Sgt. Taylor testified the vehicle was in disarray and it appeared someone was living in it.The truck contained both male and female clothing, personal items, toiletries and hygiene products, as well as bedding and towels.The exterior of the truck had been spray painted black and the back window was broken out and replaced with plexiglass.Sgt. Taylor testified broken glass was inside the vehicle and the truck bed, and that police located a crowbar inside the vehicle, which could have been used to break the rear window.A man’s white tank top was hanging over the steering column and wires were hanging down from underneath the dashboard.The dashboard below the steering column was popped open and the ignition was punched out.Sgt. Taylor testified it is common for the ignition to be punched out of a stolen vehicle so the vehicle can be started with a tool, like a screwdriver or a pair of pliers, instead of a key.A pair of needle-nose pliers was located inside a compartment of the driver’s side door.

Sgt. Taylor stated, in his experience, it is common for stolen trucks to have their rear window broken out as means of accessing the vehicle, for a stolen vehicle’s exterior color to be altered, for the ignition to be punched out, and for the dashboard to be popped open in order to bypass the vehicle’s security and ignition systems.

At the conclusion of the evidence, the jury found Appellant guilty of receiving stolen property.The trial court sentenced Appellant, as a prior and persistent offender, to 8 years of imprisonment to be served consecutive to the sentences he was already serving in another case and ordered him to pay $4,436 in restitution.This appeal follows.

Points Relied On

In his first point on appeal, Appellant argues the trial court erred in overruling his Motions for Judgment of Acquittal and for New Trial, and for entering a judgment of conviction and sentencing him for receiving stolen property because there was insufficient evidence to establish beyond a reasonable doubt that he received stolen property, in that his mere joint presence in a stolen motor vehicle did not establish beyond a reasonable doubt each and every element of the crime of receiving stolen property.

In his second point on appeal, Appellant argues the trial court erred in finding him to be a persistent offender under Section 558.016² and enhancing his punishment from a class C felony to a class B felony because those actions violated Appellant’s rights under Section 558.021,³ in that Appellant was sentenced in excess of the maximum sentence authorized by law because the State failed to plead and prove "all essential facts" showing Appellant had pled guilty to or been found guilty of two separate felonies wherein he was represented by counsel or waived the right to an attorney in writing, as Appellant’s conviction in CauseNo. 12BB-CR00483-01 reflected he was "without counsel" and therefore could not be used to enhance his punishment.

In his third point on appeal, Appellant argues the trial court erred in ordering him to pay $4,436 in restitution to Edwards because that action violated Appellant’s rights under Section 559.105.1,⁴ in that the restitution ordered was not directly related to Edwards' losses due to Appellant’s conduct of receiving the stolen truck.

Discussion

Point I—Sufficiency of the Evidence

On review of a challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence supporting a criminal conviction, this Court determines whether there was sufficient evidence from which a reasonable juror could find the defendant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.State v. Almaguer, 347 S.W.3d 636, 639(Mo. App. E.D.2011).In determining whether sufficient evidence supports the verdict, this Court considers the evidence, and the reasonable inferences drawn therefrom, in the light most favorable to the verdict, disregarding all contrary evidence and inferences.Id.It is the jury’s duty to assess the reliability, credibility, and weight of the witness’s testimony.State v. Giles, 949 S.W.2d 163, 166(Mo. App. W.D.1997).

The elements of receiving stolen property are: (1) receiving, retaining, or disposing, (2) property of another, (3) for purposes of depriving the owner of his lawful interest therein, and (4) knowing or believing the property has been stolen.Section 570.080.1., State v. Wright, 383 S.W.3d 1, 6 n. 2(Mo. App. W.D.2012).In the Second Amended Information, the State alleged Appellant, acting either alone or with another and with the purpose of depriving the owner of the vehicle, received the truck, knowing or believing it had been stolen.

A defendant’s "mere unexplained possession" of recently stolen property is insufficient in itself to give rise to an inference the defendant is guilty of receiving stolen property.State v. Langdon, 110 S.W.3d 807, 812-13(Mo. banc 2003).However, the jury may consider unexplained possession together with other facts and circumstances in finding guilt, such as providing false, evasive or contradictory statements; suspicious conduct or deceptive behavior; evidence the property was altered; or evidence the property was sold for less than its reasonable value.Id. at 813.There is rarely direct evidence a defendant knew or believed property was stolen but the State may rely on circumstantial evidence to prove a defendant’s criminal intent.Id.

On appeal, Appellant challenges the sufficiency of the evidence supporting his conviction for receiving stolen property, asserting the evidence demonstrated only Appellant’s mere unexplained presence in the truck.We disagree.

The evidence at trial was the condition and contents of the truck exhibited clear signs it had been stolen including a broken window, a damaged dashboard, a punched-out ignition, a pair of pliers which could be used to start the vehicle, and modification of the exterior with spray paint.Based on this evidence, the jury could have reasonably concluded Appellant knew the vehicle had been stolen.

The State also presented sufficient evidence for the jury to conclude Appellant had received the vehicle for the purpose of depriving Edwards of his interest in the truck.Sgt. Taylor testified the vehicle was in disarray and that, based on the contents of the vehicle, it appeared as if Appellant and Wife were living in the truck.The fact that Appellant and Wife were engaging in sexual intercourse inside the vehicle reasonably suggests Appellant and Wife had received the vehicle and were using the vehicle as if it were their own property.This evidence, along with the alteration of the vehicle’s appearance, also supports a finding that Appellant intended to deprive Edwards of his interest in the vehicle.The State presented sufficient evidence from which a reasonable juror could find Appe...