Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 49A02-1707-CR-1665 | December 12, 2017 Page 1 of 5

MEMORANDUM DECISION

Pursuant to Ind. Appellate Rule 65(D), 

this Memorandum Decision shall not be 

regarded as precedent or cited before any 

court except for the purpose of establishing 

the defense of res judicata, collateral 

estoppel, or the law of the case.

ATTORNEY FOR APPELLANT

Darren Bedwell

Marion County Public Defender

Indianapolis, Indiana

ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE

Curtis T. Hill, Jr.

Attorney General of Indiana

Angela N. Sanchez

Supervising Deputy Attorney 

General

Indianapolis, Indiana

I N T H E

COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA

Leroy Washington,

Appellant-Defendant,

v.

State of Indiana,

Appellee-Plaintiff.

December 12, 2017

Court of Appeals Case No.

49A02-1707-CR-1665

Appeal from the Marion Superior 

Court

The Honorable Jose D. Salinas, 

Judge

Trial Court Cause No.

49G14-1609-F6-37127

Najam, Judge.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 49A02-1707-CR-1665 | December 12, 2017 Page 2 of 5

Statement of the Case

[1] Leroy Washington appeals his conviction for dealing in marijuana, as a Level 6 

felony, following a bench trial. He presents a single issue for our review, 

namely, whether the State presented sufficient evidence to support that 

conviction. We affirm.1

Facts and Procedural History

[2] On September 21, 2016, Washington was driving northbound on Sherman 

Drive in Indianapolis. Indianapolis Metropolitan Police Department Officer 

Christopher Rynard, driving his marked police vehicle, saw Washington 

driving at a “pretty good speed” and decided to follow him. Tr. at 9. After 

Washington suddenly turned in front of Marion County Sheriff’s Deputy Osnel 

Andre’s vehicle and caused Deputy Andre to slam on his brakes and swerve to 

avoid hitting oncoming traffic, Officer Rynard initiated a traffic stop of 

Washington.

[3] When Officer Rynard approached Washington, who was the only occupant of 

his car, he observed that Washington was nervous. Deputy Andre assisted in 

the stop and stood next to the front passenger door while Officer Rynard talked 

to Washington. Both Officer Rynard and Deputy Andre saw a backpack with a

distinctive white star pattern on it sitting in the front passenger seat. After 

Officer Rynard checked Washington’s license on the computer in his police 

 

1

 Washington does not appeal his convictions for resisting law enforcement or obstruction of justice.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 49A02-1707-CR-1665 | December 12, 2017 Page 3 of 5

vehicle, Officer Rynard returned to Washington’s car and asked him to get out 

of the car. Washington did not comply, but drove off. Officer Rynard and 

Deputy Andre got back into their respective vehicles and chased after 

Washington.

[4] Washington traveled approximately five or six blocks in about thirty seconds to 

one minute before coming to a stop again. During the chase, Officer Rynard 

and Deputy Andre lost sight of Washington for a short period of time. After 

Washington was stopped, the officers placed him in handcuffs and patted him 

down. The officers found $468 in different denominations in his pants pockets. 

When Officer Rynard could not find the backpack in Washington’s car, he 

asked Deputy Andre and other assisting law enforcement officers to look for it 

along the route that Washington had traveled after the initial traffic stop. 

Deputy Andre found the backpack on the side of the road along that route.

Deputy Andre smelled an odor of marijuana coming from the backpack. Inside 

the backpack he found the following: a scale; a package of Swisher Sweets 

cigars; empty baggies; baggies containing marijuana; a “skunk sack”;

2 and two 

broken jars containing marijuana. Id. at 21. The total amount of marijuana 

was more than forty-six grams. 

[5] The State charged Washington with resisting law enforcement, dealing in

marijuana, and obstruction of justice, each as a Level 6 felony. The trial court 

 

2

 A skunk sack is “a sack that’s supposed to hide the smell or odor of marijuana . . . so it doesn’t permeate 

throughout the vehicle if you’re in a vehicle or throughout a house or a bag if you’re carrying it with you.” 

Tr. at 45.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 49A02-1707-CR-1665 | December 12, 2017 Page 4 of 5

found him guilty on each count following a bench trial, entered judgment of 

conviction, and sentenced him to an aggregate sentence of 730 days in 

community corrections. This appeal ensued.

Discussion and Decision

[6] Washington contends that the State presented insufficient evidence to support 

his dealing in marijuana conviction. In reviewing the sufficiency of the 

evidence, we consider only the evidence and reasonable inferences most 

favorable to the conviction, neither reweighing the evidence nor reassessing 

witness credibility. Griffith v. State, 59 N.E.3d 947, 958 (Ind. 2016). We will 

affirm the judgment unless no reasonable fact-finder could find the defendant 

guilty. Id.

[7] To prove dealing in marijuana, as a Level 6 felony, the State was required to 

show that Washington knowingly or intentionally possessed with the intent to 

manufacture, finance the manufacture of, deliver or finance the delivery of 

marijuana in an amount that weighed more than thirty grams but less than ten 

pounds. See Ind. Code § 35-48-4-10 (2017). Washington’s sole contention on 

appeal is that, because the legislature amended the dealing statute to require 

“more evidence than the quantity of marijuana” to prove intent to deal,3the 

State presented insufficient evidence here. Appellant’s Br. at 13. In particular, 

 

3

 To prove dealing in marijuana where the amount possessed is less than ten pounds, there must be

“evidence in addition to the weight of the drug that the person intended to manufacture, finance the 

manufacture of, deliver, or finance the delivery of the drug.” I.C. § 35-48-4-10(b)(1).
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 49A02-1707-CR-1665 | December 12, 2017 Page 5 of 5

Washington maintains that the evidence of his intent to deal was “scant” as 

compared to that in other cases where dealing convictions were upheld on 

appeal. Id. We cannot agree.

[8] Because intent is a mental state, triers of fact generally must resort to the 

reasonable inferences arising from the surrounding circumstances to determine 

whether the requisite intent exists. McGuire v. State, 613 N.E.2d 861, 864 (Ind. 

Ct. App. 1993), trans. denied. Circumstantial evidence of intent to deliver, such 

as possession of a large quantity of drugs, large amounts of currency, scales, 

plastic bags, and other paraphernalia can support a conviction. Id. Here, the 

State presented more than just a large quantity of marijuana to prove 

Washington’s intent to deal. In addition to the more than forty-six grams of 

raw marijuana, officers found in Washington’s backpack a digital scale,

baggies, and a “skunk sack,” and they found on Washington’s person $468 in 

cash in different denominations. That evidence is sufficient to support a 

reasonable inference that Washington intended to deal the marijuana. The 

State presented sufficient evidence to support the dealing in marijuana 

conviction.

[9] Affirmed.

Mathias, J., and Barnes, J., concur.