Thomas v. State
| Decision Date | 30 November 1987 |
| Docket Number | No. 45A03-8706-CR-156,45A03-8706-CR-156 |
| Citation | 515 N.E.2d 880 |
| Parties | Lyman THOMAS, Appellant (Defendant Below), v. STATE of Indiana, Appellee. |
| Court | Indiana Appellate Court |
William T. Enslen, Gregory W. Brown, Enslen, Enslen & Matthews, Hammond, for appellant.
Linley E. Pearson, Atty. Gen., Lisa M. Paunicka, Deputy Atty. Gen., Indianapolis, for appellee.
Lyman Thomas appeals from his convictions for official misconduct, IND.CODE Sec. 35-44-1-2(1) (1982) and theft, IND.CODE Sec. 35-43-4-2 (1987 Supp.). The trial court entered judgment on the jury's verdict and gave Thomas a sentence of two years on the theft charge, suspending one year and giving one year of probation, and a sentence of one year on the official misconduct charge with one year probation.
The facts most favorable to the trial court's judgment show that, during a routine shakedown conducted at the Indiana State Prison in Michigan City, prison officials found in a prisoner's possession a motel receipt dated July 9, 1985. The search also uncovered photographs of the prisoner's wife that bore a handwritten notation with the same date. At the time of trial in October 1986, the prisoner had been incarcerated for eighteen years.
The items were turned over to an investigator who learned that on July 9, 1985 the prisoner, James Blackburn, had accompanied a truckload of prison manufactured license plates being shipped from the Indianapolis airport. The driver of the truck was, prison employee, Lyman Thomas.
Further investigation revealed that Thomas and Blackburn left the prison at 5:00 A.M. on July 9 and returned at 7:20 P.M. that night. The evidence showed that the pair arrived at Indianapolis Airport at 9:15. They subsequently made stops in Indianapolis at the State House and at LaRue Carter Hospital. From this point Thomas and Blackburn began their return to Michigan City, although there is little direct evidence describing the events of their return journey.
The motel receipt found in Blackburn's possession was from a truckstop motel located near Grovertown, Indiana, on U.S. 30. The motel is about an hour's drive from the prison and is not along the most direct route from Indianapolis to Michigan City. At trial, the motel cashier did not specifically remember either Blackburn or Thomas, but she surmised that the receipt must have been written before 3:00 P.M., because that was when her shift was over. The motel receipt indicated that Room 11 was rented. The investigator's photographs of this room were introduced with the pictures confiscated from Blackburn and comparison showed substantial similarity.
Additionally, before leaving the prison that morning, Thomas was issued $30.00 as the standard meal allowance. The prison meal receipt forms that Thomas allegedly submitted claimed that the evening meal had been eaten at a truckstop along Interstate 65.
Thomas testified in his own behalf and was unable to add much detail, other than to say that he and Blackburn did not leave Indianapolis until 2:00 p.m. Thomas also denied that he stopped at the Grovertown truckstop to permit Blackburn to meet his wife. Both Blackburn and his wife were called to testify, and each repeatedly invoked their Fifth Amendment rights against self-incrimination.
On appeal Thomas raises several issues; however, it is only necessary to address two, which, although separately discussed, can be simply stated as:
whether there is sufficient evidence to sustain either the conviction for theft or the conviction for official misconduct.
It is by now nearly axiomatic that on review of sufficiency of the evidence questions, this Court will neither reweigh the evidence nor judge the credibility of witnesses. Instead only the evidence most favorable to the State together with the reasonable inferences to be drawn therefrom will be considered. If, on this basis, there is substantial evidence of probative value on each element, from which the jury could reasonably have inferred guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, the conviction will be affirmed. See e.g., Parks v. State (1987), Ind., 513 N.E.2d 170.
In order to sustain a theft conviction there must be proof that the defendant knowingly or intentionally exerted unauthorized control over another's property with intent to deprive the owner of the value or use of the property.
IND.CODE Sec. 35-43-4-2; Evans v. State (1986), Ind.App., 493 N.E.2d 806. In the present case the information charging theft was based on allegations that Thomas exercised unauthorized control over the meal money and approximately three hours of...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Crosswell, 14286
...aluminum was overturned because there was no showing of the alleged owner's having missed any of its property. In Thomas v. State, 515 N.E.2d 880, 881-82 (Ind.App.1987), there was no showing that the defendant's use of the property was unauthorized. In State v. Regnier, 387 N.W.2d 223, 224 ......
-
Nance v. State
...or to an extent other than that to which the other person has consented[.]” Ind.Code § 35–43–4–1(b). Nance relies upon Thomas v. State, 515 N.E.2d 880 (Ind.Ct.App.1987) in support of reversal. The defendant in Thomas, a prison employee, transported an inmate accompanying him on a delivery o......