Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 20A-CR-597 | August 28, 2020 Page 1 of 10

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

Rodney T. Sarkovics

Sarkovics Law

Carmel, Indiana

ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE

Curtis T. Hill, Jr.

Attorney General

Caryn N. Szyper

Deputy Attorney General

Indianapolis, Indiana

IN THE

COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA

Landon Patrick Hill,

Appellant-Defendant,

v.

State of Indiana,

Appellee-Plaintiff

August 28, 2020

Court of Appeals Case No.

20A-CR-597

Appeal from the Hamilton Circuit 

Court

The Honorable Paul A. Felix, 

Judge

Trial Court Cause No.

29C01-1809-F5-6649

Crone, Judge.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 20A-CR-597 | August 28, 2020 Page 2 of 10

Case Summary

[1] Landon Patrick Hill challenges the sufficiency of the evidence to support his 

convictions for level 5 felony carrying a handgun without a license, class B 

misdemeanor marijuana possession, and level 6 felony theft. We affirm.

Facts and Procedural History

[2] The facts most favorable to the verdict are as follows. Around 3:00 a.m. on 

September 21, 2018, Westfield Police Sergeant Scott Grimes was patrolling a 

two-lane stretch of Indiana State Road 32. He passed a pickup truck with a 

trailer traveling at thirty-eight miles per hour in a thirty-miles-per-hour zone. 

When he looked in his rearview mirror, he could see that the trailer taillights 

were not activated, as required by law. He turned his vehicle around and 

followed the truck. At that point, he saw that the trailer did not have a license 

plate, as required by law. 

[3] Hill, the truck’s driver and sole occupant, pulled into the parking lot of a closed 

gas station. Shortly thereafter, as Hill began to pull away from the pump,

Sergeant Grimes activated his lights and initiated a traffic stop. During the 

stop, Hill was overtly nervous and excessively sweaty, considering the mild 

weather. Sergeant Grimes asked for Hill’s license and registration, and Hill 

gave him his name. The truck was registered in the name of a female, who Hill 

said was his girlfriend. Sergeant Grimes noticed that the trailer was empty and 

that the pole that ordinarily supports the trailer when it is not attached to a 

vehicle was in an unusual position, just a couple inches off the ground. He 
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 20A-CR-597 | August 28, 2020 Page 3 of 10

asked Hill where he had gotten the trailer and when he had attached it to the 

truck. Hill said that he had bought it “from a guy in Anderson about a week 

ago” and had attached it earlier that day. Tr. Vol. 2 at 75. He was unable to 

produce any paperwork or documentation showing ownership of the trailer. 

The only marking on the trailer was a “Tractor Supply” stamp. Id. at 79. 

[4] Sergeant Dewey Abney Grimes ran Hill’s name through a BMV query and

discovered that Hill was driving on a suspended license. Hill was removed 

from the truck and arrested. When Officer retrieved Hill’s cell phone from the 

truck at Hill’s request, he discovered “marijuana shake” on the driver’s side

floorboard. Id. at 106. An inventory search of the truck produced a loaded .45 

caliber handgun tucked under the steering column and a white bag containing a 

jar of marijuana, which was found just behind the center console. 

[5] The State charged Hill with class A misdemeanor carrying a handgun without a 

license, class A misdemeanor driving while suspended, class B misdemeanor 

possession of marijuana, and level 5 felony carrying a handgun without a 

license with a prior conviction for class D felony carrying a handgun without a 

license. Meanwhile, officers attempted to ascertain the ownership of the trailer. 

Officer Steffan Short went to Tractor Supply to see whether they had similar 

trailers and discovered that the trailer in question had not been stolen from

Tractor Supply. Not long after, police received a report of a trailer stolen from 
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 20A-CR-597 | August 28, 2020 Page 4 of 10

Bullpen Tournaments (Bullpen). Bullpen reported that one or two1 of its trailers

had recently been stolen from Grand Park Sports Complex. Edward Devine, 

Bullpen’s superintendent at Grand Park, identified the trailer recovered from 

Hill as one of Bullpen’s trailers. He explained that the trailer had not been used 

on public roads but was used only to transport sandbags to and from the various

athletic fields; therefore, it was not plated. Bullpen had purchased the trailer 

two years earlier for just over $1200. 

[6] The State amended the charging information to add a count of level 6 felony 

theft. Hill proceeded pro se during pretrial proceedings, failed to appear for his

jury trial, and was tried in absentia. The jury convicted Hill as charged. The 

trial court vacated the misdemeanor handgun conviction on double jeopardy 

grounds and sentenced Hill to an aggregate six-year term. Hill now appeals. 

Additional facts will be provided as necessary.

Discussion and Decision

Section 1 – The evidence is sufficient to support Hill’s 

conviction for carrying a handgun without a license.

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

carrying a handgun without a license. When reviewing a challenge to the 

sufficiency of evidence, we neither reweigh evidence nor judge witness 

1

 The record is unclear whether one or two trailers had been stolen from Bullpen. This particular report 

appeared to involve one trailer.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 20A-CR-597 | August 28, 2020 Page 5 of 10

credibility. Moore v. State, 27 N.E.3d 749, 754 (Ind. 2015). Rather, we consider 

only the evidence and reasonable inferences most favorable to the verdict and 

will affirm the conviction unless no reasonable factfinder could find the 

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

appropriate only when reasonable persons would be unable to form inferences 

as to each material element of the offense. McCray v. State, 850 N.E.2d 998, 

1000 (Ind. Ct. App. 2006), trans. denied. The evidence need not “overcome 

every reasonable hypothesis of innocence.” Dalton v. State, 56 N.E.3d 644, 647 

(Ind. Ct. App. 2016) (citation omitted), trans. denied. Circumstantial evidence 

alone may sustain a conviction if that circumstantial evidence supports a 

reasonable inference of guilt. Maul v. State, 731 N.E.2d 438, 439 (Ind. 2000).

[8] Hill was convicted of carrying a handgun without a license as a level 5 felony, 

which required the State to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that he (1) carried 

a handgun; (2) in any vehicle or on or about his body; (3) without being 

licensed; and (4) had a prior conviction for carrying a handgun without a 

license. Ind. Code § 35-47-2-1. Hill’s only argument is that the evidence is 

insufficient to support the jury’s conclusion that he knowingly possessed the 

handgun recovered from the truck. 

[9] A conviction for unlawful possession of a handgun may rest on proof of either 

actual or constructive possession. Houston v. State, 997 N.E.2d 407, 409-10 

(Ind. Ct. App. 2013). Actual possession occurs when the defendant has direct 

physical control over the contraband; constructive possession is established 

when the defendant has both the capability and the intent to maintain dominion 
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 20A-CR-597 | August 28, 2020 Page 6 of 10

and control over the contraband. Id. at 410. Hill’s possession of the truck

which housed the handgun is sufficient to establish that he was capable of 

maintaining dominion and control over it. Id. The facts supporting his 

capability are even more compelling given the location of the handgun within 

the vehicle – underneath the steering column, within his reach. 

[10] Hill asserts that he did not have exclusive possession of the truck because the 

truck belonged to his girlfriend. However, the issue is not ownership of the 

vehicle or premises where the contraband is found but rather possession of it. 

Goliday v. State, 708 N.E.2d 4, 6 (Ind. 1999) (emphasis added). Hill was the sole 

occupant of the truck when Sergeant Grimes stopped it. As such, he had 

exclusive control over the vehicle at the time of the stop. “His exclusive 

possession of the vehicle was sufficient to raise a reasonable inference of 

intent.” Id. 

[11] Hill had both the capability and intent to maintain dominion and control over 

the handgun. His arguments concerning the officers’ failure to check for 

fingerprints or search for documentation concerning the handgun are merely 

invitations to reweigh evidence, as is his argument concerning plain view. We 

decline his invitations. The evidence and reasonable inferences most favorable 

to the verdict are sufficient to support Hill’s conviction for carrying a handgun 

without a license. We therefore affirm it. 
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 20A-CR-597 | August 28, 2020 Page 7 of 10

Section 2 – The evidence is sufficient to support Hill’s 

conviction for marijuana possession. 

[12] Hill also challenges the sufficiency of the evidence to support his conviction for 

marijuana possession. To convict Hill of class B misdemeanor marijuana 

possession, the State was required to prove that he knowingly possessed 

marijuana. Ind. Code § 35-48-4-11. Hill again focuses his argument on the 

possession element, claiming that the State failed to prove that he constructively 

possessed the marijuana. As with the handgun, the marijuana was discovered 

inside a vehicle in which Hill was the driver and sole occupant. He therefore

was capable of possessing it. Also like the handgun, the bag of marijuana was 

close to Hill – right behind the center console, within his reach. We also note 

that Officer Abney observed marijuana shake on the driver’s side floor of the 

truck, where Hill had been seated. Hill’s argument that the absence of an odor 

suggests that he was not the person who created the mess is an invitation to 

reweigh evidence, which we may not do. The evidence was sufficient to 

establish Hill’s intent. Hill constructively possessed the marijuana; therefore, 

we affirm his conviction for marijuana possession. 

Section 3 – The evidence is sufficient to support Hill’s theft 

conviction.

[13] Hill also asserts that the evidence is insufficient to support his theft conviction. 

To convict Hill of theft, the State was required to prove beyond a reasonable 

doubt that he knowingly or intentionally exerted unauthorized control over 

property of another person with intent to deprive the other person of any part of 
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 20A-CR-597 | August 28, 2020 Page 8 of 10

its value or use. Ind. Code § 35-43-4-2(a). The offense is a level 6 felony if the 

property has a value of at least $750 and less than $50,000. Ind. Code § 35-43-

4-2(a)(1).

[14] Probative evidence establishes that Hill was in possession of Bullpen’s stolen 

trailer. Superintendent Devine testified that the trailer recovered from Hill is 

“one of our trailers. I’m sure of it.” Tr. Vol. 2 at 124. He recognized the trailer 

not merely because it was the same model but also because of the unique way 

that they configured the trailers for use at Grand Park. Id. at 129. 

[15] Nevertheless, as Hill correctly asserts, the mere unexplained possession of 

stolen property, standing alone, does not automatically support a conviction for 

theft. Fortson v. State, 919 N.E.2d 1136, 1143 (Ind. 2010). Rather, such 

possession is to be considered along with other evidence, such as how recent or 

distant in time his possession was to the time the item was stolen and other 

circumstances such as proximity to the place of the theft. Id. Here, Bullpen 

superintendent Devine explained the process of unloading and parking the 

trailers at the end of the athletics season and indicated that the timing of the 

theft is consistent with the date on which Hill was found with the trailer and 

arrested. Moreover, the gas station where Hill was found with the trailer was 

within two or three miles of the Grand Park outbuilding where the trailers had 

been parked. Hill told Sergeant Grimes that he lived in Noblesville and said 

that he was on his way home from his girlfriend’s house in Indianapolis. When 

the sergeant asked him “how he had gotten to be on State Road 32 in 

Westfield,” he said that “he needed to check his GPS to remember how he got 
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 20A-CR-597 | August 28, 2020 Page 9 of 10

to where he was at from Indianapolis.” Tr. Vol. 2 at 76. It was within the 

jury’s province to assess the credibility of Hill’s explanation for his presence in 

Westfield at 3:00 a.m. 

[16] Moreover, both Sergeant Grimes and Officer Abney testified that Hill was 

pouring with sweat even though the weather was mild and it was the middle of 

the night. The officers also noticed abnormalities in the way that the trailer had 

been fastened to the truck that Hill was driving. For example, both officers 

explained that their attention was drawn to the unusual position of the pole at 

the front of the trailer, which was too close to the ground. Officer Abney, who 

has owned and used a trailer for many years, testified concerning other aspects 

of the trailer that were abnormal, most notably, that the secondary trailer 

hooks, which keep the trailer from becoming detached if the truck and trailer hit 

bumps or potholes, simply were not there. He stated that it “looked like [the 

trailer] was just put on there very quickly and not with any thought of hauling 

things.” Id. at 103. This evidence supports a reasonable inference that Hill’s 

profuse sweating was attributable at least in part to his recent exertion in 

(quickly and awkwardly) connecting the trailer to the truck at the nearby Grand 

Park. Hill’s statements to Sergeant Grimes that he had purchased the trailer a 

week earlier from an unnamed guy in Anderson amount to an invitation to 

reweigh evidence, which we may not do. The evidence and reasonable 

inferences most favorable to the verdict are sufficient to support the jury’s 

conclusion that Hill knowingly or intentionally exerted unauthorized control 

over Bullpen’s trailer with intent to deprive Bullpen of its use and value.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 20A-CR-597 | August 28, 2020 Page 10 of 10

[17] Finally, Hill claims that the State failed to establish that the trailer had a value 

of at least $750. Devine testified that he was the purchasing agent who actually 

bought the trailer two years earlier for “just over $1200.” Id. at 129. He also 

explained that the Bullpen trailers were never taken out on the roadways and 

were used only to haul sandbags around Grand Park. See State’s Ex. 2 

(photograph depicting stolen trailer as clean and in good condition). This 

testimony supports the jury’s reasonable inference that the trailer was still worth 

at least $750. Based on the foregoing, we conclude that the evidence is 

sufficient to support Hill’s conviction for theft as a level 6 felony. Accordingly, 

we affirm.

[18] Affirmed.

Robb, J., and Brown, J., concur.