Court Opinion

ID: 9897445
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-11-14 19:11:38.653387+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:16:24.357258
License: Public Domain

FILED
                                                                     Mar 23 2023, 8:33 am

                                                                         CLERK
                                                                     Indiana Supreme Court
                                                                        Court of Appeals
                                                                          and Tax Court

ATTORNEY FOR APPELLANT                                    ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE
Cara Schaefer Wieneke                                     Theodore E. Rokita
Wieneke Law Office, LLC                                   Attorney General of Indiana
Brooklyn, Indiana                                         Indianapolis, Indiana
                                                          Steven J. Hosler
                                                          Deputy Attorney General
                                                          Indianapolis, Indiana

                                            IN THE
    COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA

Shalee C. Dowell,                                         March 23, 2023
Appellant-Defendant,                                      Court of Appeals Case No.
                                                          19A-CR-2623
        v.                                                Appeal from the Perry County
                                                          Circuit Court
State of Indiana,                                         The Honorable Karen Werner,
Appellee-Plaintiff                                        Special Judge
                                                          Trial Court Cause No.
                                                          62C01-1805-F2-361

                                 Opinion by Judge May
                        Chief Judge Altice and Judge Riley concur.

May, Judge.

Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 19A-CR-2623 | March 23, 2023                           Page 1 of 9
[1]   In this procedurally anomalous circumstance, where appellate counsel

      determined pages of the transcript were missing after the completion of Shalee

      C. Dowell’s direct appeal, we reopened the direct appeal and permitted counsel

      to raise any new issues revealed in the pages of transcript that had been missing.

      As a result of counsel’s review, Dowell now challenges the sufficiency of the

      State’s evidence that she committed Level 2 felony dealing in

      methamphetamine. 1 The State cross-appeals to challenge our reopening of the

      case for supplemental briefing. For reasons explained more fully below, we

      affirm.

                                Facts and Procedural History
[2]   In our earlier opinion, we stated the facts relevant to that appeal, which are also

      pertinent here:

                 On May 2, 2018, officers initiated a traffic stop on a gold
                 Oldsmobile Alero after observing the vehicle drive “left of
                 center.” Three people were in the car. Dowell was the driver,
                 and the passengers were Christopher Wiseman and James
                 Tucker. The officers decided to remove all of the vehicle’s
                 occupants in order to conduct a K9 open air sniff of the vehicle.

                 When Dowell exited the vehicle, Officer Jason Shadwick noticed
                 she was acting “unusually nervous.” While Officer Shadwick
                 was handing Dowell’s driver’s license and registration to another
                 officer, he noticed her “trying to place a stainless vial into the

      1
          Ind. Code § 35-48-4-1.1(e).

      Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 19A-CR-2623 | March 23, 2023              Page 2 of 9
        back of her pants.” Officer Shadwick intercepted the vial because
        “[t]hrough [his] years and experience, those are commonly used
        for controlled substances.” Officer Shadwick also removed a cell
        phone from Dowell’s back pocket.

        Next, Officer Daymion Marsh went to the passenger side of the
        car and asked Tucker to exit the vehicle. When Tucker did so,
        Officer Marsh observed a “[c]lear Ziploc bag containing several
        other Ziploc bags ... [that] contained a crystal substance” on the
        passenger floorboard of the vehicle. Officer Marsh testified that,
        based on his training and experience, the packaging and quantity
        indicated the substance was prepared for “[d]ealing purposes.”
        The substance was later tested and determined to be 16 grams of
        methamphetamine, in individual portions of 2.83-3.55 grams.
        Officers arrested Dowell, Tucker, and Wiseman.

Dowell v. State, 155 N.E.3d 1284, 1285-6 (Ind. Ct. App. 2020) (internal citations

to the record omitted). Several text messages between Wiseman and Dowell

contained language consistent with drug dealing, and Wiseman admitted the

messages were about Dowell selling methamphetamine to his friend at work.

In the texts, Dowell indicated she could sell Wiseman’s friend a “ball.” (Tr.

Vol. II at 215.) Wiseman reported a “ball” meant an “8-ball” which was

“three-and-a-half grams of meth.” (Id.) Dowell also communicated with

another unidentified person via text message and told that person, “My car got

repoed so I’ll be in a gold alero.” (Ex. Vol. I at 69) (errors in original). Finally,

Dowell called sister Shianne from jail and asked Shianne to dispose of certain

drug-related items, which Shianne disposed after finding the items where

Dowell said they would be.

Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 19A-CR-2623 | March 23, 2023           Page 3 of 9
[3]   On May 6, 2018, the State charged Dowell with Level 2 felony dealing in

      methamphetamine, Level 4 felony possession of methamphetamine, 2 and Level

      6 felony maintaining a common nuisance. 3 The State later added a charge of

      Level 6 felony obstruction of justice. 4 After a three-day jury trial, the jury

      returned a verdict of guilty as to all charges. The trial court dismissed the Level

      4 felony possession of methamphetamine conviction based on double jeopardy

      concerns. The trial court sentenced Dowell to twenty years for Level 2 felony

      dealing in methamphetamine, one-and-one-half years for Level 6 felony

      maintaining a common nuisance, and one-and-one-half years for Level 6 felony

      obstruction of justice. The trial court ordered the sentences to be served

      consecutive to one another for an aggregate sentence of twenty-three years.

[4]   In her first direct appeal, Dowell argued the State did not present sufficient

      evidence she committed Level 6 felony maintaining a common nuisance

      because “the State did not prove that she used her vehicle more than one time

      to possess or deal methamphetamine.” Dowell, 155 N.E.3d at 1286-7. We

      reversed Dowell’s conviction of Level 6 felony maintaining a common nuisance

      because “the State proved Dowell used the gold Alero only on May 2, 2018, to

      transport drugs for sale. That single instance of use is not sufficient to prove

      Dowell committed Level 6 felony maintaining a common nuisance.” Id. at

      2
          Ind. Code § 35-48-4-6(c).
      3
          Ind. Code § 35-45-1-5(c).
      4
          Ind. Code § 35-44.1-2-2(a).

      Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 19A-CR-2623 | March 23, 2023           Page 4 of 9
      1287. We issued our opinion on Dowell’s direct appeal on October 23, 2020.

      Neither the State nor Dowell petitioned for rehearing or for transfer to our

      Indiana Supreme Court, and the opinion was certified on December 18, 2020.

[5]   On July 27, 2021, Dowell filed a pro se petition for post-conviction relief.

      Deputy State Public Defender Adam Carter filed his appearance on Dowell’s

      behalf. On March 17, 2022, Dowell’s mother, Stephanie Thompson, contacted

      Dowell’s appellate counsel, Cara Schaefer Weineke, to inform her a portion of

      the trial transcript from Dowell’s trial, specifically Thompson’s testimony, was

      missing from the record submitted on appeal. Weineke confirmed Thompson’s

      assertion.

[6]   On March 31, 2022, via appellate counsel Weineke, Dowell petitioned this

      court to reassume jurisdiction of her case, order the trial court to prepare the

      missing portion of the transcript, and allow Dowell to file a supplemental brief

      “to raise any issues that were not previously raised and whose merits were

      augmented by inclusion of the missing portions of the transcript.” (Appellant’s

      Verified Petition to Reassume Jurisdiction and to Reopen Case for

      Supplemental Briefing at 5.) The State did not respond. On April 22, 2022, we

      granted Dowell’s petition.

                                 Discussion and Decision

      Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 19A-CR-2623 | March 23, 2023         Page 5 of 9
           1. Reassumption of Jurisdiction and Supplemental Briefing5
[7]   The State asserts we “should vacate the order allowing Dowell to reopen her

      direct appeal because there is no authority supporting the extraordinary relief of

      providing her a second direct appeal without first obtaining post-conviction

      relief.” (Br. of Appellee at 11.) However, the State did not respond to Dowell’s

      petition asking us to reassume jurisdiction and allow supplemental briefing.

      After we granted Dowell’s petition on April 22, 2022, the State did not ask us to

      reconsider our decision. The State did not respond to Dowell’s motion asking

      this court to stay the proceedings in order to allow Dowell to request the

      missing portions of the transcript from the trial court. After we granted

      Dowell’s motion to stay, the State did not ask us to reconsider our decision.

      The State did not respond to Dowell’s motion to compel the trial court to issue

      an order certifying completion of clerk’s record. After we granted that motion

      on September 1, 2022, the State did not ask us to reconsider our decision.

[8]   Plainly put, the State had multiple opportunities to assert its objection to this

      court’s course of action, but the State failed to do so. Therefore, the State has

      waived any challenge to our decision to reassume jurisdiction of Dowell’s direct

      appeal and permit supplemental briefing. See, e.g., State v. Barlow, 181 Ind. App.

      79, 80, 390 N.E.2d 1046, 1047 (1979) (a party may not sit idly by and observe

      what it perceives as error, without calling it to the attention of the court, and

      5
          Because the State’s cross-appeal issue, if successful, would be dispositive of this appeal, we address it first.

      Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 19A-CR-2623 | March 23, 2023                                        Page 6 of 9
       then “attempt to raise that error to his advantage on appeal”). Waiver

       notwithstanding, to the extent our decision deviates from the Indiana Rules of

       Appellate Procedure, we note Indiana Appellate Rule 1 allows this court, in its

       discretion, to “permit deviation from these Rules.”

                                  2. Sufficiency of the Evidence
[9]    Dowell argues the State did not present sufficient evidence she committed Level

       2 felony dealing in methamphetamine. Our standard of review for claims

       challenging the sufficiency of the evidence is well-settled:

                 Sufficiency-of-the-evidence claims ... warrant a deferential
                 standard, in which we neither reweigh the evidence nor judge
                 witness credibility. Rather we consider only the evidence
                 supporting the judgment and any reasonable inferences drawn
                 from that evidence. We will affirm a conviction if there is
                 substantial evidence of probative value that would lead a
                 reasonable trier of fact to conclude that the defendant was guilty
                 beyond a reasonable doubt.

       Powell v. State, 151 N.E.3d 256, 262-63 (Ind. 2020) (internal citations omitted).

       To prove Dowell committed Level 2 felony dealing in methamphetamine, the

       State had to present evidence she possessed more than ten grams of pure or

       adulterated methamphetamine with the intent to deliver. Ind. Code § 35-48-4-

       1.1(e).

[10]   Dowell asserts the State did not present sufficient evidence she knew the

       methamphetamine was in her vehicle and she intended to deliver it to someone

       else. She acknowledges methamphetamine packaged in such a way as to

       Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 19A-CR-2623 | March 23, 2023             Page 7 of 9
       suggest it would be sold was found in her vehicle but contends it was

       “presumably out of Dowell’s view from the driver’s seat.” (Br. of Appellant at

       11.) Thus, Dowell contends, to prove she knew of the methamphetamine in her

       vehicle, the State had to prove the text messages between Wiseman and

       Dowell’s telephone number were sent by Dowell and not someone else.

       Dowell argues she presented evidence to refute the State’s contention she sent

       the text messages because, at trial, Thompson testified Tucker was typing on

       Dowell’s phone during the time the text messages were exchanged with

       Wiseman.

[11]   Officer Marsh testified he observed methamphetamine in plain view on the

       floorboard of the passenger side of Dowell’s vehicle. Officer Marsh testified the

       methamphetamine was packaged in small bags that were then stored in a larger

       bag. He testified such packaging, in his experience, was consistent with dealing

       methamphetamine. Further, Wiseman testified he communicated with Dowell

       earlier that day regarding the sale of methamphetamine. Dowell’s alternate

       explanation of the identity of the person with whom Wiseman communicated

       regarding the sale of methamphetamine is an invitation for us to reweigh the

       evidence and judge the credibility of witnesses, which we cannot do. See Powell,

       151 N.E.3d at 263 (appellate court cannot reweigh evidence or judge the

       credibility of witnesses). The State’s evidence was sufficient to permit a

       reasonable trier of fact to find beyond a reasonable doubt that Dowell knew

       about the methamphetamine and intended to sell it to Wiseman. See, e.g.,

       Durstock v. State, 113 NE.3d 1272, 1279 (Ind. Ct. App 2018) (evidence Durstock

       Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 19A-CR-2623 | March 23, 2023           Page 8 of 9
       possessed over six grams of fentanyl and a scale, in conjunction with Durstock’s

       jail phone call to a third party during which Durstock admitted selling drugs

       was sufficient to prove Durstock committed Level 2 felony dealing in a narcotic

       drug), trans. denied.

                                                Conclusion
[12]   The State waived any challenge to our decision to reassume jurisdiction by

       failing to assert any objection to the process before doing so in its appellate

       brief. Waiver notwithstanding, we have discretion to permit deviation from the

       Indiana Rules of Appellate Procedure. The State presented sufficient evidence

       to prove Dowell committed Level 2 felony dealing in methamphetamine.

       Accordingly, we affirm.

[13]   Affirmed.

       Altice, C.J., and Riley, J., concur.

       Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 19A-CR-2623 | March 23, 2023          Page 9 of 9