Pursuant to Ind.Appellate Rule 65(D),

this Memorandum Decision shall not be regarded as precedent or cited before any cour t except for the purpose of establishing the defense of res judicata, collateral estoppel, or the law of the case.

ATTORNEY FOR APPELLANT : ATTORNEY S FOR APPELLEE : DEBORAH MARKISOHN GREGORY F. ZOELLER Indianapolis, Indiana Attorney General of Indiana RICHARD C. WEBSTER Deputy Attorney General Indianapolis, Indiana


## IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA

CRAIG HATCHETT , ) ) Appellant

- Defendant, ) ) vs. ) No. 49A02

- 1402

- CR

- 88 ) STATE OF INDIANA, ) ) Appellee

- Plaintiff. )

APPEAL FROM THE MARION SUPERIOR COURT The Honorable Steven Eichholtz , Judge The Honorable Peggy Hart, Master Commissioner Cause N o. 49G20

- 1302

- FB

- 12394
September 30, 2014 MEMORANDUM DECIS ION

– NOT FOR PUBLICATION

### 2

BARNES, Judge 

### Case Summary Craig Hatchett appeals his conviction for Class B felony dealing in cocaine. We affirm.
Issue The sole issue before us is whether the re is sufficient evidence to support Hatchett’s conviction.
Facts On February 21, 2013, officers of the Indianapolis Metropolitan Police Department made plans to attempt undercover buys of drugs from suspected dealers. Two undercover officers in an unmar ked car saw Hatchett standing in a small group of people in a neighborhood where there had been complaints of drug dealing. Hatchett made eye contact with one of the officers, Hatchett and the officer nodded to each other, and Hatchett waved at the office rs, motioning for them to come to him. The officers drove over to Hatchett, who then approached the passenger side of the car. Hatchett asked the officer in the passenger seat what he was looking for, and the officer responded “forty.” Tr. p. 104. This is a common drug dealing term that refers to forty dollars, which generally translates into two small rocks of crack cocaine. Hatchett then gave the officer two baggies containing small rocks of what appeared to be crack cocaine in exchange for two twent y - dollar bills, the serial numbers of which had been pre

- recorded. Later testing confirmed that the rocks were crack cocaine. After the undercover officers left the area, uniformed officers arrived and arrested

### 3

Hatchett. Officers found the two twenty

- do llar bills with the pre

- recorded serial numbers in Hatchett’s pocket. The State charged Hatchett with one count of Class B felony dealing in cocaine and one count of Class D felony possession of cocaine. A jury found Hatchett guilty of both counts. The trial court only entered judgment of conviction on the dealing count. Hatchett now appeals. Analysis When we review a claim of insufficient evidence to support a conviction, we must consider only the evidence most favorable to the conviction and any reas onable inferences that may be drawn from that evidence. Baker v. State , 968 N.E.2d 227, 229 (Ind. 2012). We will affirm if a reasonable fact finder could determine from the evidence that the defendant was guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. Id. We will n ot reweigh the evidence or judge the credibility of witnesses. Id. A conviction may be sustained on circumstantial evidence alone. Boggs v. State , 928 N.E.2d 855, 864 (Ind. Ct. App. 2010), trans. denied

. Hatchett’s sole argument is that there is insuff icient evidence he knew that the substance he sold the undercover officer was crack cocaine. In Indiana, knowledge of the nature of the substance sold is an element of dealing in a controlled substance. Bemis v.
State , 652 N.E.2d 89, 92 (Ind. Ct. App. 19 95). Such knowledge may be inferred by a trier of fact based upon an examination of the surrounding circumstances. McClendon v. State , 671 N.E.2d 486, 489 (Ind. Ct. App. 1996).

### 4

There is no evidence in this case to suggest that Hatchett was accidentall y in possession of crack cocaine. Rather, he engaged in conduct entirely consistent with drug dealing when he sold the substance to the undercover officer in exchange for forty dollars, evidencing familiarity with the street slang connected with the sale of crack cocaine. Although Hatchett did not admit to selling crack cocaine or explicitly offer to sell the officer cocaine, there clearly is sufficient circumstantial evidence that he knew he was selling cocaine. Conclusion There is sufficient evidence t o sustain Hatchett’s conviction. We affirm.
Affirmed. BRADFORD, J., and BROWN, J., concur.