Townsend v. State, No. 49S00-8601-CR-9

Docket NºNo. 49S00-8601-CR-9
Citation498 N.E.2d 1198
Case DateOctober 21, 1986
CourtSupreme Court of Indiana

Page 1198

498 N.E.2d 1198
Jimmy L. TOWNSEND, Appellant (Defendant Below),
v.
STATE of Indiana, Appellee (Plaintiff Below).
No. 49S00-8601-CR-9.
Supreme Court of Indiana.
Oct. 21, 1986.

Page 1199

George K. Shields, Indianapolis, for appellant.

Linley E. Pearson, Atty. Gen., Jody Cusson-Cobb, Deputy Atty. Gen., Indianapolis, for appellee.

DICKSON, Justice.

Jimmy L. Townsend appeals his convictions of robbery, a class B felony 1, and confinement, a class B felony 2. Defendant was sentenced to consecutive terms of twenty (20) years imprisonment for each offense. This direct appeal asserts the following issues: 1) inconsistent findings; 2) insufficiency of the evidence; 3) failure to grant continuance; and, 4) inadequate sentencing findings.

ISSUE I

Defendant first argues that the trial court erroneously made inconsistent findings when it determined that the defendant was not guilty of carrying a handgun without a license, but guilty of using a handgun to commit robbery and confinement. Defendant was charged with three offenses. The crimes of robbery and confinement were charged as class B felonies because of the allegation that defendant was armed with a handgun as a deadly weapon. In the third count, defendant was charged with carrying a handgun without a license 3

Page 1200

as a class D felony by alleging that the defendant had a prior conviction for the same type of offense. 4 Following his trial to the court, without a jury, the defendant was convicted of the first two counts, but acquitted as to Count III.

This Court has looked and will continue to look at findings and verdicts to determine if they are inconsistent. But perfect logical consistency should not be demanded, and only extremely contradictory and irreconcilable verdicts warrant corrective action by this Court. Parrish v. State (1983), Ind., 453 N.E.2d 234, 239; Marsh v. State (1979), 271 Ind. 454, 393 N.E.2d 757.

In the case at bar, the findings are not necessarily inconsistent. It is true that the robbery and confinement counts, as charged, required proof that the defendant was armed with a handgun. However, conviction of the unlicensed handgun count as charged would have required not only proof that defendant was carrying a handgun, but also proof that defendant had previously been convicted of a similar offense. Thus, the acquittal does not necessarily and exclusively compel the conclusion that defendant was unarmed. We therefore hold that the judgments were not so inconsistent as to require a reversal.

ISSUE II

Defendant next challenges the sufficiency of the evidence supporting his convictions.

In addressing the issue of sufficiency of evidence, we will affirm the conviction if, considering only the probative evidence and reasonable inferences supporting the verdict, without weighing evidence or assessing witness credibility, a reasonable trier of fact could conclude that the defendant was guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. Case v. State (1984), Ind., 458 N.E.2d 223; Loyd v. State (1980), 272 Ind. 404, 407, 398 N.E.2d 1260, 1264, cert. denied, 449 U.S. 881, 101 S.Ct. 231, 66 L.Ed.2d 105.

The following facts support the convictions. Early in the morning of June 28, 1985, defendant entered an Indianapolis convenience store. Holding a handgun, he stood in front of the cashier and ordered her not to close the cash register drawer. Defendant then instructed the cashier to take money out of the drawer and to put it in a sack. He also demanded cigarettes and lighters. The cashier complied, but triggered an alarm as she removed the money. While the cashier was removing the money, defendant told her that he either wanted to kill her or that he was going to take her with him. After the sack was filled, defendant told the victim that he wanted her to go somewhere out of the way and that he wanted her to be quiet. In response to defendant's request, the cashier went into a back room. She testified that she was frightened because of defendant's earlier threats. Police apprehended defendant in the parking lot. He was armed with a .38 caliber revolver. As the arresting officer disarmed him, defendant dropped a paper bag containing lighters and cigarettes.

To support his contentions of insufficient evidence, defendant emphasizes alleged evidentiary discrepancies: no money was recovered from the defendant, a customer watching from outside the store did not observe a gun, and the cashier's movement to the back room was consentual rather than compelled. These are matters of weight and credibility for determination by the fact-finder. We find that the court could reasonably find the defendant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.

ISSUE III

Defendant next contends that the trial court erred in refusing to grant him a continuance requested during the sentencing hearing for the purpose of investigating whether or not the defendant was under medication at the time of the offense. This...

To continue reading

Request your trial
48 practice notes
  • Harrison v. State, No. 65S00-9105-DP-380
    • United States
    • Indiana Supreme Court of Indiana
    • January 4, 1995
    ...verdicts warrant corrective action by this court. Hoskins v. State (1990), Ind., 563 N.E.2d 571, 577; Townsend v. State (1986), Ind., 498 N.E.2d 1198; see also United States v. Powell, 469 U.S. 57, 67, 105 S.Ct. 471, 478, 83 L.Ed.2d 461 (1984) (holding that sufficiency of evidence review sh......
  • Meriweather v. State, No. 49A02-9409-CR-520
    • United States
    • Indiana Court of Appeals of Indiana
    • November 30, 1995
    ...in which that element of the crime was committed, St. John v. State (1988) Ind., 523 N.E.2d 1353, 1359; Townsend v. State (1986) Ind., 498 N.E.2d 1198, 1201, such a proposition does not apply with regard to the enhancement here because the trial court did not cite an element of any of the c......
  • Smith v. State, No. 49A02-9407-PC-426
    • United States
    • Indiana Court of Appeals of Indiana
    • August 31, 1995
    ...that element of the crime was committed. E.g., St. John v. State (1988) Ind., 523 N.E.2d 1353, 1359; Townsend v. State (1986) Ind., 498 N.E.2d 1198, 1201. In such a case, the trial court may consider the "particularized individual circumstances" of the crime's factual elements, an......
  • McNeely v. State, No. 74A01-8802-CR-61
    • United States
    • Indiana Court of Appeals of Indiana
    • November 3, 1988
    ...by the record may give rise to the belief that they were overlooked or not properly considered. Townsend v. State (1986), Ind., 498 N.E.2d 1198. In rendering sentence, the trial court made the following The court finds that the following aggravating circumstances are present in the case. Fi......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
48 cases
  • Harrison v. State, No. 65S00-9105-DP-380
    • United States
    • Indiana Supreme Court of Indiana
    • January 4, 1995
    ...verdicts warrant corrective action by this court. Hoskins v. State (1990), Ind., 563 N.E.2d 571, 577; Townsend v. State (1986), Ind., 498 N.E.2d 1198; see also United States v. Powell, 469 U.S. 57, 67, 105 S.Ct. 471, 478, 83 L.Ed.2d 461 (1984) (holding that sufficiency of evidence review sh......
  • Meriweather v. State, No. 49A02-9409-CR-520
    • United States
    • Indiana Court of Appeals of Indiana
    • November 30, 1995
    ...in which that element of the crime was committed, St. John v. State (1988) Ind., 523 N.E.2d 1353, 1359; Townsend v. State (1986) Ind., 498 N.E.2d 1198, 1201, such a proposition does not apply with regard to the enhancement here because the trial court did not cite an element of any of the c......
  • Smith v. State, No. 49A02-9407-PC-426
    • United States
    • Indiana Court of Appeals of Indiana
    • August 31, 1995
    ...that element of the crime was committed. E.g., St. John v. State (1988) Ind., 523 N.E.2d 1353, 1359; Townsend v. State (1986) Ind., 498 N.E.2d 1198, 1201. In such a case, the trial court may consider the "particularized individual circumstances" of the crime's factual elements, an......
  • McNeely v. State, No. 74A01-8802-CR-61
    • United States
    • Indiana Court of Appeals of Indiana
    • November 3, 1988
    ...by the record may give rise to the belief that they were overlooked or not properly considered. Townsend v. State (1986), Ind., 498 N.E.2d 1198. In rendering sentence, the trial court made the following The court finds that the following aggravating circumstances are present in the case. Fi......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT