RICHARD GENE CENTERS v. STATE (2024)

MEMORANDUM DECISION

Case Summary

[1] Richard Gene Centers was convicted of Level 4 felony unlawful possession of a firearm by a serious violent felon (SVF), Level 6 felony residential entry, and Class A misdemeanor intimidation. He now appeals, arguing the evidence is insufficient to support his convictions. We affirm.

Facts and Procedural History

[2] In May 2022, Jennifer Boller (now Eckstein) lived with Dacia West and West's seventeen-year-old son, D.W., in Marion. When Jennifer was returning home from work late one night, a man followed her onto the porch, told her that the police were after him, and asked for help. Jennifer, who didn't know the man, told him to wait on the porch while she went inside to get help. The man didn't listen, opened the door, and followed Jennifer inside. When Jennifer called for Dacia, the man said he knew her. Dacia recognized the man as Centers, as she had worked with his sisters at Applebee's and Centers would eat there. Tr. Vol. II pp. 91-92. Centers, who was “[c]haotic” and “[d]runk,” told Dacia that the police were after him and asked to stay at the house. Id. at 93-94. Dacia said no but offered to call his sisters. At one point, Centers pulled out a gun and started waving it around (Jennifer and Dacia eventually got the gun away from him and hid it).

[3] Centers also asked D.W. if he could stay the night, but D.W. said no. Id. at 124. Centers grabbed D.W. by the shoulder and told him that he was “gonna find” his gun, “knock [them] out or hurt [them],” and “burn[ ] the house down.” Id. at 125, 128, 133. Scared, D.W. grabbed a kitchen knife. Eventually, Jennifer and Dacia got Centers to leave and called the police.

[4] The State charged Centers with Level 4 felony unlawful possession of a firearm by an SVF, Level 6 felony residential entry, and Level 6 felony intimidation. Centers failed to appear at his jury trial, which was held in his absence. During trial, the State introduced Centers's booking photo. See Ex. 1. The officer who booked Centers into jail identified him as the man in Exhibit 1. Although Centers wasn't present at trial, Jennifer testified that she probably wouldn't recognize him if she saw him. Tr. Vol. II p. 59. Dacia, who knew Centers, identified him by name as the person who had entered the house uninvited and confirmed that he is the man in Exhibit 1. Id. at 91-92. D.W. also identified the man who had entered the house uninvited as the man in Exhibit 1. Id. at 122-24. The jury found Centers guilty of Level 4 felony unlawful possession of a firearm by an SVF, Level 6 felony residential entry, and Class A misdemeanor intimidation as a lesser-included offense of the Level 6 felony. The trial court sentenced him to ten years, with eight years executed.

[5] Centers now appeals.

Discussion and Decision

[6] Centers contends the evidence is insufficient to support his convictions. When reviewing sufficiency-of-the-evidence claims, we neither reweigh the evidence nor judge the credibility of witnesses. Willis v. State, 27 N.E.3d 1065, 1066 (Ind. 2015). We only consider the evidence supporting the judgment and any reasonable inferences that can be drawn from the evidence. Id. A judgment will be affirmed if there is substantial evidence of probative value to support each element of the offense such that a reasonable trier of fact could have found the defendant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. Id.

[7] Centers first argues the evidence is insufficient to establish that he is the person who committed the offenses. Centers emphasizes that Jennifer couldn't identify him. While this is true, Dacia, who knew Centers, identified him by name as the man who entered the house that night uninvited. She also identified the man in Exhibit 1 as Centers. Although D.W. had not seen Centers before, he identified the man who entered the house that night uninvited as the man in Exhibit 1. This evidence is sufficient to prove that Centers was the man at the house. Centers's other arguments, such as that the police didn't attempt to collect any DNA or fingerprints, are merely requests for us to reweigh the evidence, which we don't do.

[8] Centers also argues the evidence is insufficient to support his intimidation conviction. To convict Centers of Class A misdemeanor intimidation, the State had to prove that he communicated a threat to D.W. with the intent that D.W. engage in conduct against his will. See Ind. Code § 35-42-2-1(a)(1); Appellant's App. Vol. II p. 12. Centers acknowledges that D.W. testified that he (1) asked him if he could stay the night and (2) threatened to harm them and burn down the house. However, Centers asserts that because D.W. didn't testify that the threats were “made in exchange for being allowed to stay in the home,” the evidence is insufficient. Appellant's Br. p. 14.

[9] Whether a defendant intended that someone engage in conduct against their will depends on the facts and circumstances of each case. McBride v. State, 128 N.E.3d 531, 537 (Ind. Ct. App. 2019), trans. denied. Here, Centers's intent was clear from the facts and circumstances, even if his threats were not verbally articulated as a conditional statement. A reasonable person in D.W.’s situation would have understood that Centers's threats were made in an effort to allow him to stay at the house, as he had repeatedly asked to do that night. It was reasonable for the jury to find that Centers wanted to stay and that he would harm them or the house if D.W. didn't let him do so. The evidence is sufficient to support Centers's intimidation conviction.

[10] Affirmed.

Vaidik, Judge.

Altice, C.J., and Crone, Sr. J., concur.