Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 49A04-1710-CR-2490 | June 29, 2018 Page 1 of 6

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

Timothy J. O’Connor

O’Connor & Auersch

Indianapolis, Indiana

ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE

Curtis T. Hill, Jr.

Attorney General

Evan Matthew Comer

Deputy Attorney General

Indianapolis, Indiana

I N T H E

COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA

Quincy Hawkins,

Appellant-Defendant,

v.

State of Indiana,

Appellee-Plaintiff

June 29, 2018

Court of Appeals Case No.

49A04-1710-CR-2490

Appeal from the Marion Superior 

Court

The Honorable Marc T. 

Rothenberg, Judge

Trial Court Cause No.

49G02-1508-F1-30160

Crone, Judge.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 49A04-1710-CR-2490 | June 29, 2018 Page 2 of 6

Case Summary 

[1] Quincy Hawkins appeals his conviction for level 4 felony possession of a 

narcotic drug following a jury trial. Hawkins argues that there was insufficient 

evidence to support his conviction. Finding that the evidence was sufficient, we 

affirm. 

Facts and Procedural History

[2] The evidence most favorable to the verdict shows that on August 21, 2015, 

officers with the Indianapolis Metropolitan Police Department SWAT team 

executed a no-knock search warrant on Hawkins’s home. In an effort to keep 

everyone safe, the SWAT team broke a window and used a flash bang, a 

diversionary device meant to disorient the occupants of a residence, as they 

announced their presence by yelling that they had a search warrant. 

[3] The flash bang woke and frightened Hawkins and his girlfriend, Maleisha 

Robinson, who had been sleeping in the master bedroom. Fearing that his 

home was under attack, Hawkins rolled out of bed, grabbed a rifle, and began 

shooting through the bedroom window and siding of the house.

1 The police did 

 

1 This case offers yet another vivid illustration of the dangers of using flash bangs during search warrant 

executions. Officer safety is frequently cited as a justification for flash bang usage, but Hawkins’s startled 

(and violent) reaction to the flash bang’s explosion actually put the lives of the SWAT team members at risk. 

In Watkins v. State, our supreme court cautioned that flash bangs “should be the exception in search warrant 

executions” and that “[t]heir extraordinary degree of intrusion will in many cases make a search 

constitutionally unreasonable.” 85 N.E.3d 597, 603 (Ind. 2017). We have serious concerns about what 

appears to be an upsurge in the use of flash bangs, as well as about the standards (if any) that govern their 

use.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 49A04-1710-CR-2490 | June 29, 2018 Page 3 of 6

not return fire because they could not see the shooter, but continued to 

announce their presence. Hawkins laid down his weapon when he heard the 

police yelling. Robinson and two house guests exited the home, and Hawkins 

exited moments later. All the occupants were taken into custody. 

[4] The police then searched the home. In addition to finding several firearms and 

a few bongs throughout the house, the police found a plastic bag containing less 

than a gram of heroin in a bathroom shower and less than a gram of marijuana 

on the dining room floor. The police also found two white paper envelopes on 

the dresser in the master bedroom. Each envelope contained hydrocodone pills 

that weighed a combined total of 15.73 grams. 

[5] The State charged Hawkins with level 1 felony attempted murder, level 5 felony 

battery by means of a deadly weapon, level 6 felony maintaining a common 

nuisance, level 4 felony possession of a narcotic drug (hydrocodone), level 6 

felony possession of a narcotic drug (heroin), and class C misdemeanor 

possession of drug paraphernalia. At trial, Robinson claimed that she obtained 

the hydrocodone pills via a prescription that she filled at a pharmacy, and she 

subsequently separated the pills into the envelopes. The jury convicted 

Hawkins of the two possession charges and the paraphernalia charge, but found 

him not guilty on the other charges. Hawkins was sentenced to seven years. 

This appeal ensued. 
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 49A04-1710-CR-2490 | June 29, 2018 Page 4 of 6

Discussion and Decision

[6] Hawkins challenges the sufficiency of the evidence supporting his level 4 felony 

conviction. In reviewing an insufficient evidence claim, we do not reweigh the 

evidence or judge the credibility of witnesses. Bailey v. State, 907 N.E.2d 1003, 

1005 (Ind. 2009). Rather, we consider only the evidence that supports the 

judgment and the reasonable inferences arising therefrom. Id. “We will affirm 

if there is substantial evidence of probative value such that a reasonable trier of 

fact could have concluded the defendant was guilty beyond a reasonable 

doubt.” Id. 

[7] A person who knowingly possesses a narcotic drug without a valid prescription 

commits possession of a narcotic drug, a level 4 felony if the amount of the drug 

involved is at least ten but less than twenty-eight grams. Ind. Code § 35-48-4-

6(a), -(c)(1). A person actually possesses contraband when he has “direct 

physical control over it.” Gray v. State, 957 N.E.2d 171, 174 (Ind. 2011). If 

actual possession cannot be proven, then a conviction for possessing 

contraband may rest on constructive possession. Id. A person constructively 

possesses contraband when he has the intent and capability to maintain 

dominion and control over it. Id. Hawkins argues that the evidence presented 

at trial does not establish that he possessed the hydrocodone. He concedes that 

he had the capability to maintain dominion and control of the hydrocodone, 

but argues that the State failed to establish the intention to do so. 
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 49A04-1710-CR-2490 | June 29, 2018 Page 5 of 6

[8] A trier of fact may infer that the intent element is satisfied based on a 

defendant’s possessory interest in the premises on which the contraband is

found. Id. Circumstantial evidence is required to support this inference when 

the possessory interest is not exclusive. Id. Among the additional 

circumstances that will support an inference of intent to control the contraband 

are: 

(1) a defendant’s incriminating statements; (2) a defendant’s 

attempting to leave or making furtive gestures; (3) the location of 

contraband like drugs in settings suggesting manufacturing; (4) 

the item’s proximity to the defendant; (5) the location of 

contraband within the defendant’s plain view; and (6) the 

mingling of contraband with other items the defendant owns. 

Id. at 175. This list is not exhaustive, as other circumstances could just as 

reasonably demonstrate a defendant’s requisite knowledge. Id.

[9] Here, the hydrocodone pills were found in envelopes on top of a dresser in the 

master bedroom. It is undisputed that Hawkins regularly slept there and that he 

was sleeping there when the raid occurred. Thus, the envelopes containing 

contraband were in immediate proximity to where Hawkins was sleeping.

2

 The 

presence of the bongs, marijuana, and heroin in plain view would support an 

inference that Hawkins intended to maintain dominion and control over the 

envelopes and their contents. Based on Hawkins’s knowledge that the other 

 

2 On page 11 of his brief, Hawkins cites this Court’s memorandum decision in Funk v. State, No. 27A02-1601-

CR-170 (Ind. Ct. App. Dec. 29, 2016), trans. denied (2017), in violation of Indiana Appellate Rule 65(D). 
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 49A04-1710-CR-2490 | June 29, 2018 Page 6 of 6

drugs and drug paraphernalia were in the house, the jury could reasonably infer 

that he also had knowledge of and intended to maintain dominion and control 

over the pills inside the envelopes as well. Moreover, the jury was free to 

disbelieve Robinson’s claim that the pills were hers, especially since no 

prescription was found in the home or produced at trial. 

[10] Hawkins merely invites this Court to reweigh the evidence and judge the 

credibility of the witnesses’ testimony. We must decline this invitation. 

Therefore, we affirm Hawkins’s conviction. 

[11] Affirmed.

Bailey, J., and Brown, J., concur.