Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 02A04-1507-CR-1046 | April 20, 2016 Page 1 of 8

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

Mark A. Thoma

Deputy Public Defender

Leonard, Hammond, Thoma & Terrill

Fort Wayne, Indiana

ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE

Gregory F. Zoeller

Attorney General of Indiana

Paula J. Beller

Deputy Attorney General

Indianapolis, Indiana

IN THE

COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA

John A. Bridges, Jr.,

Appellant-Defendant,

v.

State of Indiana,

Appellee-Plaintiff.

April 20, 2016

Court of Appeals Case No.

02A04-1507-CR-1046

Appeal from the Allen Superior 

Court

The Honorable Wendy W. Davis

Trial Court Cause No.

02D04-1502-F2-5

May, Judge.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 02A04-1507-CR-1046 | April 20, 2016 Page 2 of 8

[1] John A. Bridges appeals his convictions of the following offenses:1 Count I, 

dealing in cocaine or narcotic drug, a Level 2 felony;

2 Count II, dealing in 

cocaine or narcotic drug, a Level 4 felony;

3 Count IV, dealing in cocaine or 

narcotic drug, a Level 5 felony;4 and Count V, dealing in cocaine or narcotic 

drug, a Level 5 felony.

5 Bridges argues the evidence was insufficient to convict 

him. We affirm. 

Facts and Procedural History

[2] On January 20, 2015, Emily Begnene made a controlled buy of heroin. She 

was acting as a confidential informant and was supervised by Detective Shane 

Heath of the Fort Wayne Police Department’s Vice and Narcotics Division. 

Police drove Begnene to 3025 Plaza, Allen County. Begnene met Bridges and 

purchased over a gram of heroin from him. Bridges’ girlfriend, Yolanda 

McGee, was present during the sale. The heroin purchased was a brown 

powdery substance.

[3] On January 30, 2015, Begnene made a second controlled buy of heroin, again 

supervised by Detective Heath. Police drove Begnene to meet Bridges at 814 

 

1 Bridges was also charged with possession of a firearm and dealing in marijuana. The State dismissed the 

firearm charge, and Bridges admitted he was guilty of dealing in marijuana. 

2 Ind. Code § 35-48-4-1 (2014). 

3 Ind. Code § 35-48-4-1(c) (2014).

4 Ind. Code § 35-48-4-1(a)(1) (2014).

5 Ind. Code § 35-48-4-1(a)(1) (2014).
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 02A04-1507-CR-1046 | April 20, 2016 Page 3 of 8

Lake Avenue, Apartment 3, Allen County, where Bridges and McGee resided.

McGee was also present during this controlled buy. The heroin purchased was 

a grayish-blue substance. After this buy, police brought Begnene back to the 

station, where she identified Bridges in a photo array as the person from whom 

she had purchased heroin on both occasions.

[4] Based on the controlled buys, Detective Heath obtained a search warrant to 

search Bridges’ apartment at 814 Lake Avenue. Bridges and McGee lived at 

the apartment, but were not listed on the lease. The legal tenant was Christina 

Sims, who allowed Bridges to live at the apartment in exchange for drugs and 

rent payment. 

[5] On February 3, 2015, Fort Wayne police executed the search warrant. After 

police breached the door, Bridges and McGee exited the apartment. Bridges 

was wearing only boxer shorts, so he asked Detective Heath to bring him his 

pants from a chair in the living room. Detective Heath found Bridges’ wallet, 

identification, and $1,300.00 in cash in the pants’ pocket. On the same chair, 

police discovered a size 5X hoodie jacket, which was proportional to the size of 

Bridges’ pants. Police found in the pocket of the jacket a baggie containing 

substances determined to be cocaine and heroin. The drugs were packaged in a 

manner common for distribution.

[6] The search also uncovered other incriminating items. A container of plastic 

baggies and a scale that tested positive for cocaine residue were found in a desk
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 02A04-1507-CR-1046 | April 20, 2016 Page 4 of 8

drawer.

6 Three clear plastic baggies were found with the corners removed.

Detectives found a total of 90.8 grams of marijuana in a baggie in the bathroom 

toilet bowl and in a jar beside the chair where the other drugs and clothing were 

found. A loaded firearm was found under the mattress in the bedroom where 

Bridges had been sleeping. Detective Jamie Masters found a smartphone with a 

telephone number corresponding to the number Begnene had called to set up 

both controlled buys from Bridges. 

[7] On February 9, 2015, the State charged Bridges with Count I, dealing in 

cocaine or narcotic drug, a Level 2 felony; Count II, dealing in cocaine or 

narcotic drug, a Level 4 felony; Count III, unlawful possession of a firearm by 

serious violent felon, a Level 4 felony;7 Count IV, dealing in cocaine or narcotic 

drug, a Level 5 felony; Count V, dealing in cocaine or narcotic drug, a Level 5 

felony; and Count VI, dealing in marijuana, hash oil or hashish, a Level 6 

felony.8

[8] A bench trial was held on June 16 and 17, 2015. The State dismissed the

possession of a firearm charge. During closing argument, Bridges admitted he 

was guilty of dealing in marijuana. The trial court found Bridges guilty of the 

 

6 At trial, Detective Tina Blackburn testified to the significance of the baggies and the scale found in the desk 

drawer, indicating it is common for scales to be used to weigh drugs before packaging and for drugs to be 

packaged in plastic baggies. 

7 Ind. Code § 35-47-4-5 (2014).

8 Ind. Code § 35-48-4-10 (2014).
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 02A04-1507-CR-1046 | April 20, 2016 Page 5 of 8

remaining Counts and sentenced Bridges to a total of twenty years of

incarceration.

Discussion and Decision

[9] Bridges argues the evidence is insufficient to support his convictions for two 

reasons. First, he challenges Begnene’s credibility and the validity of her 

testimony regarding the two controlled buys. Second, he claims the evidence of

the heroin and cocaine found in the apartment was “circumstantial at best” and 

“simply too tenuous” to support his other two convictions. (Appellant’s Br. at 

13.) The evidence is sufficient to support all of his convictions. 

[10] When reviewing sufficiency of evidence to support a conviction, we consider 

only the probative evidence and reasonable inferences supporting the court’s 

decision. Drane v. State, 867 N.E.2d 144, 146 (Ind. 2007). We affirm the 

judgment unless no reasonable trier of fact could find the elements of the crime 

proven beyond a reasonable doubt. Id. Evidence need not overcome every 

reasonable hypothesis of innocence and is sufficient if reasonable inferences 

may be drawn from it to support the conviction. Id. at 147. We do not reweigh 

the evidence or judge the credibility of witnesses. It is the fact-finder’s role, not 

that of this court, to assess witness credibility and weigh the evidence to 

determine whether it is sufficient to support a conviction. Id. at 146. 

Dealing Convictions for Sales to Begnene

[11] Bridges maintains that he “did not knowingly or intentionally deliver heroin to 

the confidential informant on January 20th or 30th, 2015 . . . .” (Br. of Appellant 
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 02A04-1507-CR-1046 | April 20, 2016 Page 6 of 8

at 17.) To convict Bridges, the State was required to prove Bridges delivered 

heroin to Begnene on those two dates. See Ind. Code § 35-48-4-1(a)(1). 

[12] Bridges challenges Begnene’s credibility. At Bridges’ bench trial, the trial court 

had the opportunity to observe Begnene testify under direct and cross 

examination. The court noted it had presided over many cases involving 

confidential informants and explicitly found Begnene was credible. Our 

standard of review prohibits us from reassessing the court’s determination. See

Drane, 867 N.E.2d at 146 (appellate court does not reassess witness credibility).

[13] There was sufficient evidence to convict Bridges of Counts IV and V, dealing in 

cocaine or a narcotic drug as Level 5 felonies. He asserts “it is reasonable to 

infer that McGee, and not Bridges, could have delivered the heroin to 

Begnene.” (Br. of Appellant at 17.) The State presented ample evidence to the 

contrary and we may not reweigh it. Begnene testified Bridges was the man 

from whom she purchased heroin during both controlled buys. Furthermore, 

she identified Bridges from a photo array as the man who sold her heroin. 

“[T]he sole uncorroborated testimony of the informant-buyer is sufficient to 

convict . . . .” Hudson v. State, 462 N.E.2d 1077, 1083 (Ind. Ct. App. 1984).

Dealing Convictions for Drugs in Hoodie

[14] In order to convict Bridges of Count I, dealing in cocaine or other narcotic 

drug, a Level 2 felony, the State was required to prove that Bridges knowingly 

or intentionally possessed with the intent to deliver cocaine in the amount of 

ten (10) grams or more. See Ind. Code § 35-48-4-1(e). To convict Bridges of 
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 02A04-1507-CR-1046 | April 20, 2016 Page 7 of 8

Count II, dealing in cocaine or other narcotic drug, a Level 4 felony, the State 

was required to prove that Bridges knowingly or intentionally possessed with 

the intent to deliver heroin in an amount between one and five grams. See Ind. 

Code § 35-48-4-1(c). 

[15] Bridges maintains that he “did not knowingly or intentionally . . . possessed 

[sic] cocaine or heroin on February 3, 2015.” (Br. of Appellant at 17.) He 

argues that while the hoodie jacket containing the cocaine and heroin were 

found near his pants, there was “no evidence introduced to tie the hoodie or the 

drugs found in it to Mr. Bridges, no DNA, no hair samples, the size of the 

hoodie, compared to Mr. Bridges, and no fingerprints on the plastic bags 

containing the drugs.” (Id. at 13.) 

[16] We acknowledge “[t]he mere presence at the scene of a crime is insufficient to 

sustain a conviction.” Hunter v. State, 578 N.E.2d 353, 358 (Ind. 1991), reh’g 

denied. “However, presence at the scene connected with other facts and 

circumstances tending to show participation will support a conviction.” Id.

Here, when the search warrant was executed, Bridges directed the police to a 

chair in the living room to retrieve his pants. Detective Heath found $1,300.00

in cash in Bridges’ pants, yet Bridges said he was unemployed at the time. On 

the same chair, a size 5X hoodie jacket proportional to the size of the pants was 

found. The jacket pocket contained cocaine and the same two types of heroin 

that Begnene previously purchased from Bridges. Other paraphernalia 

indicative of distribution were also found in the apartment. Bridges’ presence at 
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 02A04-1507-CR-1046 | April 20, 2016 Page 8 of 8

the apartment, together with Begnene’s testimony and the discovery of the 

phone used to set up the drug sales, is enough to support Bridges’ convictions. 

[17] Bridges invites us to speculate that “the hoodie and the drugs could have

belonged to the actual legal tenant of the apartment – Christina Sims.” (Br. of 

Appellant at 18.) This is merely an invitation to reinterpret and reweigh the 

evidence. See Sharp v. State, 42 N.E.3d 512, 514 (Ind. 2015) (court is forbidden 

from reweighing evidence). Our role is not to consider other reasonable 

inferences that could have been drawn from the evidence. See Drane, 867 

N.E.2d at 146. Rather, when reviewing the sufficiency of the evidence to 

support a conviction, we consider “only the probative evidence and reasonable 

inferences supporting the [conviction].” Drane, 867 N.E.2d at 146 (emphasis in 

original). The evidence presented and the reasonable inferences therefrom

support Bridges’ convictions for Counts I and II. 

Conclusion

[18] There is sufficient evidence to support Bridges’ convictions for dealing in 

cocaine or narcotic drugs. We affirm. 

[19] Affirmed.

Najam, J., and Riley, J., concur.