Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 32A05

- 1605

- CR

- 948 | October 19, 2016 Page 1 of 5 

### MEMORANDUM DECISION



### FILED

Pursuant to Ind. Appellate Rule 65(D),

Oct 19 2016, 8:26 am this Memorandum Decision shall not be regarded as precedent or cited before any CLER K

Indiana Supreme Court

Court of Appeals

court except for the purpose of establishing and Tax Court

the defense of res judicata, collateral

estoppel, or the law of the case.

A TTORNEY FOR A PPELLANT

Scott Knierim

Danville, Indiana A TTORNEYS FOR A PPELLEE

Gregory F. Zoeller

Attorney General of Indiana

Lyubov Gore

Deputy Attorney General

Indianapolis, Indiana



### I N T H E



# COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA

Wayne Mitchell,

Appellant

- Defendant,

v.



### State of Indiana,

Appellee

- Plaintiff. October 19, 2016

Court of Appeals Case No.

32A05

- 1605

- CR

- 948

Appeal from the Hendricks

Superior Court

The Honorable Stephe nie Lemay

Luken, Judge

Trial Court Cause No.

32D05

- 1601

- F5

- 8

Bailey, Judge.Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 32A05

- 1605

- CR

- 948 | October 19, 2016 Page 2 of 5 

# Case Summary

[1] Wayne Mitchell (“Mitchell”) appeals his conviction for Escape, as a Level 5

felony, 1 presenting the sole issue of whether the State presented sufficient

evidence that he was in lawful detention. We affirm.



# Facts and Procedural History

[2] In December of 2015, Mitchell was incarcerated at the Hendricks County Jail

awaiting a bench trial scheduled for January 21, 2016. Mitchell requested an

inmate work assignment and was permitted to leave his cell and perform tasks

at the county garage attached to the jail facility. He assisted Hendricks County

Sheriff’s Department mechanic, Ray Cummings (“Cummings”), doing such

things as changing tires and washing vehicles, for “roughly a w eek, week and a

half.” (Tr. at 177.)

[3] On January 14, 2016, Mitchell worked with Cummings for several hours.

Around 7:30 p.m., Cummings told Mitchell that he could “go in.” (Tr. at 180.)

Mitchell went into a back area, where he shut off some lights and grabbed his

jacket

. He told Cummings that he had locked all the doors and would “see

[Cummings] tomorrow.” (Tr. at 180.) However, when Cummings checked the

doors at 8:30 p.m., he discovered that one was left unlocked. Cummings locked

1 Ind. Code § 35

- 44.1

- 3

- 4. He does not challenge his convictions for Burglary, as a Level 5 felony, I.C. § 35

-

43

- 2

- 1, or Auto Theft, as a Level 6 felony, I.C. § 35

- 43

- 4

- 2.5.Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 32A05

- 1605

- CR

- 948 | October 19, 2016 Page 3 of 5 the door and went home, leaving a white Dodge truck parked outside.

Cummings left the keys to that truck on his workbench.

[4] At around 5:00 the next morning, Cummings received a call from Deputy

Charles Tyree. After being told that Mitchell was missing, Cummings checked

the garage. The keys he had left on the workbench were no longer there, and

there was a lug wrench out

- of

- place. Deputy Tyree examined the back door

and it appeared to have been pried open with a tool. The white Dodge truck

was missing and inmate clothing had been discarded in the parking lot.

[5] Later that day, officers discovered the white Dodge truck in a Walgreens

parking lot in Greenwood, Indiana. Soon thereafter, Mitchell was taken into

custody at the Greenwood Park Mall. The keys to the white Dodge truck were

on his person.

[6] The State charged Mitchell with Escape, Burglary, and Auto Theft and alleged

that he is a habitual offender. At the conclusion of the State’s case

- in

- chief in

the jury trial, Mitchell moved for a directed verdict on Count I, Escape. He

argued that the State failed to properly charge flight from work release as

opposed to lawful detention. The motion for a directed verdict was denied, and

Mitchell was convicted of Escape, Burglary, and Auto Theft. The jury also

found Mitchell to be a habitual offender. He was sentenced to six years

imprisonment on the Escape conviction, enhanced by six years due to his

habitual offender status. He received a five

- year concurrent sentence forCourt of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 32A05

- 1605

- CR

- 948 | October 19, 2016 Page 4 of 5 Burglary and a one

- year concurrent sentence for Auto Theft. This appeal

ensued.



# Discussion and Decision

[7] Mitchell challenges the sufficiency of the evidence to support his conviction for

Escape. When reviewing the sufficiency of the evidence to support a

conviction, we will consider only the probative evidence and reasonable

inferences supporting the verdict. Drane v. State

, 867 N.E.2d 144, 146 (Ind.

2007). We will affirm the conviction unless no reasonable fact

- finder could find

the elements of the crime proven beyond a reasonable doubt. Id.

[8] The State charged that Mitchell violated Indiana Code Section 35

- 44.1

- 3

- 4,

which provides in relevant part: “A person, except as provided in subsection

(b), who intentionally flees from lawful detention commits escape, a Level 5

felony.” Mitchell does not deny that he fled or that he did so intentionally.

According to Mitchell, although his conduct arguably amounts to flight from

work release, it does not constitute flight from lawful detention. 2

[9] “Lawful detention” is defined by Indiana Code Section 35

- 31.5

- 2

- 186 to include

“detention in a penal facility.” The State presented evidence that Mitchell was

an inmate at the Hendricks County Jail. He was being held on a $500 bond

2 Mitchell claims that he was “in a program in which special privileges are allowed to inmates” and was

“granted temporary leave for a specific purpose.” (Appellant’s Br. at 9

- 10.) However, he does not provide a

statutory basis for his claim of temporary leave.Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 32A05

- 1605

- CR

- 948 | October 19, 2016 Page 5 of 5 awaiting trial. Pursuant to his request, Mitchell had been allowed outside his

cell to perform unpaid work. He had not been released from incarceration or

transferred to the separate Hendricks County work release facility. The State

presented sufficient evidence to establish that Mitchell was in lawful detention

prior to his escape. Mitchell ’s emphasis upon the absence of a law enforcement

officer at the garage is unavailing. See Rowe v. State

, 813 N.E.2d 1232, 1235

(Ind. Ct. App. 2004) (“detention for law enforcement purposes does not require

the presence of a law enforcement officer”), trans. denied

.



# Conclusion

[10] The State presented sufficient evidence to support Mitchell’s conviction for

Escape.

[11] Affirmed.

Riley, J., and Barnes, J., concur.