Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 34A04-1502-CR-86 | September 10, 2015 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

Derick W. Steele 

Kokomo, Indiana 

ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE

Gregory F. Zoeller 

Attorney General of Indiana 

George P. Sherman 

Deputy Attorney General 

Indianapolis, Indiana 

IN THE 

COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA

Charles A. Clark, 

Appellant-Defendant, 

v. 

State of Indiana, 

Appellee-Plaintiff 

September 10, 2015 

Court of Appeals Case No. 

34A04-1502-CR-86 

Appeal from the Howard County 

Superior Court 

The Honorable George A. 

Hopkins, Judge 

Trial Court Cause No. 

34D04-1402-FD-32 

Vaidik, Chief Judge. 
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 34A04-1502-CR-86 | September 10, 2015 Page 2 of 8

Case Summary 

[1] Charles A. Clark was stopped by the police for crossing the center line of the 

road. During the stop, the officers saw a baggie of what appeared to be crack 

cocaine under the open driver’s-side door and placed the baggie on the hood of 

the patrol car. A struggle ensued while the officers were handcuffing Clark, and 

Clark moved toward the baggie on the hood. When the struggle ended, the 

baggie was gone with only a wet spot that looked like saliva in its place. 

[2] Clark was convicted of Class D felony obstruction of justice, and the trial court 

sentenced him to three years. Clark now appeals, arguing that the evidence is 

insufficient to support his conviction and that his three-year sentence is 

inappropriate. 

[3] Because it is reasonable to infer that Clark ate the baggie, we conclude that the 

evidence is sufficient to support his conviction for obstruction of justice. We 

also conclude that Clark’s three-year sentence is appropriate given the nature of 

the offense and his character. We therefore affirm the trial court. 

Facts and Procedural History 

[4] On the night of February 27, 2014, Kokomo Police Department Officer Jason 

Maynard stopped Clark for driving across the center line of the road. Sergeant 

Teresa Kelley heard Officer Maynard call in the traffic stop and went to the 

scene. When Officer Maynard approached Clark in his car, he saw that Clark’s 

hands were shaking and that he was avoiding eye contact. Due to Clark’s 
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 34A04-1502-CR-86 | September 10, 2015 Page 3 of 8

“extreme nervousness,” Officer Maynard asked for a canine unit, and Officer 

Ryan Shuey came with his dog. Tr. p. 34. Officer Shuey’s dog detected the 

presence of a controlled substance on the driver’s side of the car. After 

removing Clark from his car, Officer Maynard and Sergeant Kelley began 

searching the car for drugs. The officers found a baggie of what appeared to be 

crack cocaine directly underneath the open driver’s-side door. 

[5] Officer Maynard told Clark that he was under arrest. While Officer Maynard 

was handcuffing him, Clark started flailing his right arm to avoid the handcuffs. 

Sergeant Kelley set the baggie on the hood of Officer Maynard’s patrol car, and 

then went to assist him. During the struggle, Clark either lunged or was pushed 

toward the hood of the patrol car. To gain control, Officer Maynard leaned 

Clark over the hood, at which point Clark lifted himself off the hood and 

moved forward several inches. According to Sergeant Kelley, it “appeared” 

that Clark “had taken the baggie and put it in his mouth, used his mouth to go 

up on the top of the hood, swipe it and swallow it.” Id at 101. Sergeant Kelley 

called out that Clark had eaten the evidence. All three officers saw that the 

baggie of evidence was gone and in its place was what appeared to be a smear 

of saliva and mouth marks. 

[6] Officer Maynard asked Clark to open his mouth several times; although Clark 

initially refused, he eventually complied. A search of the hood and the 

surrounding area yielded nothing. Later that night, Officer Maynard obtained a 

search warrant for the contents of Clark’s stomach. Officer Maynard took 

Clark to St. Joseph Hospital, but the doctor was unable to retrieve anything 
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 34A04-1502-CR-86 | September 10, 2015 Page 4 of 8

from his stomach. Accordingly, the baggie and its contents were never 

recovered. 

[7] The State charged Clark with Class D felony obstruction of justice and Class A 

misdemeanor resisting law enforcement. Clark represented himself at trial. 

The jury found him guilty as charged. At the sentencing hearing, the trial court 

identified one aggravator—Clark’s criminal history—and no mitigators. The 

court sentenced him to three years in the Indiana Department of Correction for 

obstruction of justice and one year for resisting law enforcement, to be served 

concurrently. 

[8] Clark now appeals his conviction and sentence for obstruction of justice only. 

Discussion and Decision 

[9] Clark raises two issues on appeal. First, he contends that the evidence is 

insufficient to support his conviction for obstruction of justice. Second, he 

contends that his three-year sentence for obstruction of justice is inappropriate 

based on the nature of the offense and his character. 

I. Sufficiency of the Evidence 

[10] When reviewing sufficiency-of-evidence claims, we consider only the probative 

evidence and reasonable inferences supporting the verdict without weighing the 

evidence or assessing witness credibility. The evidence is sufficient if a 

reasonable trier of fact could conclude that the defendant was guilty beyond a 
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 34A04-1502-CR-86 | September 10, 2015 Page 5 of 8

reasonable doubt. Lewis v. State, 34 N.E.3d 240, 245 (Ind. 2015). Moreover, 

circumstantial proof is permissible the evidence is sufficient if an inference may 

reasonably be drawn from it to support the verdict. Drane v. State, 867 N.E.2d 

144, 147 (Ind. 2007). 

[11] In order to convict Clark as charged here, the State had to prove that he altered, 

damaged, or removed the plastic baggie with the intent to prevent it from being 

used as evidence in either an official proceeding or an investigation. See Ind. 

Code Ann. § 35-44.1-2-2(a)(3) (West Supp. 2013). 

[12] Clark argues that the evidence is insufficient to support his conviction because 

no one actually saw him put the baggie in his mouth.1

 However, the State 

presented significant circumstantial evidence through the testimony of the three 

officers. When Officer Maynard attempted to handcuff Clark, Clark resisted. 

Sergeant Kelley set a baggie of what appeared to be crack cocaine on the hood 

of Officer Maynard’s patrol car, and then went to assist Officer Maynard. At 

some point during the struggle to put handcuffs on Clark, he either lunged 

toward the patrol car or was forced onto the hood of the car with his face near 

where Sergeant Kelley put the baggie. At that point, Sergeant Kelley saw Clark 

appear to eat the baggie, and she called out that Clark had eaten the baggie. 

 

1

 Clark directs us to the distinction between his case and Mullins v. State, 717 N.E.2d 902 (Ind. Ct. App. 

1999). In Mullins, the officer actually saw the defendant eat the crack cocaine. However nothing in Mullins

suggests that a case may not be proven by circumstantial evidence or precludes the trier of fact from making 

inferences based on the evidence. Id. at 903 (“We look instead to the evidence favorable to the judgment, 

along with any inferences reasonably drawn therefrom. We will affirm a judgment that is supported by 

substantial evidence of probative value.”). 
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 34A04-1502-CR-86 | September 10, 2015 Page 6 of 8

The officers noticed that the baggie was gone and that there was a wet smudge 

that looked like saliva on the hood of Officer Maynard’s car where the baggie 

had been. 

[13] Although Clark asserts that it is “mere speculation” that he ate the baggie, 

Appellant’s Br. p. 5, the facts adduced at trial show otherwise: the baggie was 

on the hood of the car, Clark was on the hood of the car, and as soon as the 

struggle between Clark and Officer Maynard ended, the baggie was gone with 

only a wet spot that looked like saliva in its place. It was not unreasonable for 

the jury to infer from this that Clark ate the baggie. We therefore find that the 

evidence is sufficient to support Clark’s conviction for obstruction of justice. 

II. Sentencing 

[14] Clark also contends that his three-year sentence for obstruction of justice is 

inappropriate given the nature of the offense and his character. He asks us to 

reduce his sentence to the advisory term of eighteen months. 

[15] Our appellate rules authorize revision of a sentence “if, after due consideration 

of the trial court’s decision, the Court finds that the sentence is inappropriate in 

light of the nature of the offense and the character of the offender.” Ind. 

Appellate Rule 7(B). “[A] defendant must persuade the appellate court that his 

or her sentence has met this inappropriateness standard of review.” Childress v. 

State, 848 N.E.2d 1073, 1080 (Ind. 2006). 
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 34A04-1502-CR-86 | September 10, 2015 Page 7 of 8

[16] The principal role of Rule 7(B) review “should be to attempt to leaven the 

outliers, and identify some guiding principles for trial courts and those charged 

with improvement of the sentencing statutes, but not to achieve a perceived 

‘correct’ result in each case.” Cardwell v. State, 895 N.E.2d 1219, 1225 (Ind. 

2008). Whether a sentence is inappropriate ultimately turns on the culpability 

of the defendant, the severity of the crime, the damage done to others, and a 

myriad of other factors that come to light in a given case. Id. at 1224. 

[17] A person who commits a Class D felony (for a crime committed before July 1, 

2014) shall be imprisoned for a fixed term of between six months and three 

years, with the advisory sentence being one and one-half years. Ind. Code § 35-

50-2-7. Here, the trial court sentenced Clark to three years. 

[18] As for the nature of the offense, Clark argues that because he did not harm or 

threaten to harm a witness, this was a mere “run-of-the-mill attempt to remove 

evidence that may have been used against him.” Appellant’s Br. p. 7. But 

Clark did not merely “attempt” to obstruct justice, he actually obstructed justice 

by altering, damaging, or removing the baggie. In effect, he evaded 

prosecution, or even an investigation, for possession of a controlled substance. 

The nature of the offense supports Clark’s three-year sentence. 

[19] As for Clark’s character, the Presentence Investigation Report shows that he 

has been convicted of two misdemeanors and four felonies: misdemeanor 

possession of marijuana/hash oil/hashish (1993) and misdemeanor operating a 

motor vehicle without ever receiving a license (1993); felony dealing in cocaine 
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 34A04-1502-CR-86 | September 10, 2015 Page 8 of 8

(1994 and 2001); and felony possession of cocaine (2007 and 2008). 

Appellant’s App. p. 87-89. The PSI concludes that Clark is at high risk to 

reoffend. Id. at 91. At sentencing, Clark did not advance any mitigating 

factors. Tr. p. 166. Nothing in Clark’s character indicates that a three-year 

sentence is inappropriate. 

[20] Affirmed. 

[21] ROBB, J., and PYLE, J., concur.