Brian Hawn, Appellant-Defendant v. State of Indiana, Appellee-Plaintiff (2024)

MEMORANDUM DECISION

Case Summary

[1] Brian Hawn appeals his conviction for failing to return to lawful detention, as a Level 6 felony.¹ Hawn presents one issue for our review, namely, whether the State presented sufficient evidence to support his conviction. We affirm.

Facts and Procedural History

[2] On June 17, 2022, Hawn entered into a plea agreement in Cause Number 76C01-2111-CM-1432 (“CM-1432”). In that agreement, Hawn agreed to plead guilty to two misdemeanor offenses in exchange for an aggregate sentence of sixty days executed. The trial court accepted the plea and sentenced him to Steuben County Jail for sixty days, “or, if qualified, Northeast Indiana Community Corrections” (“NICC”). Ex. at 7. The court then ordered Hawn to report to either the jail on July 22 at 6:00 p.m. or NICC, if qualified.

[3] On June 27, Hawn filed a request to postpone his report date to give him additional time to interview with NICC. On the bottom of the request form, Community Corrections Office Matt Rhoden stated that Hawn was scheduled for an interview on July 5 and that, as of June 27, “NICC has dates available for interview & intake prior to” Hawn's report date. Id. at 9. The court denied Hawn's request that same day.

[4] On July 12, a NICC officer interviewed Hawn. On July 13, NICC filed a report that stated that Hawn “is statutorily eligible and does meet the criteria for the program” and that, if placed on community corrections, he would be placed on home detention. Id. at 14. Hawn did not have any additional communications with NICC between that date and his report date, and he did not report to the jail on July 22.

[5] On September 29, 2022, the State charged Hawn with one count of failure to return to lawful detention, as a Level 6 felony, in Cause Number 76C01-2209-F6-1235 (“F6-1235”), and the court issued a warrant for his arrest. On March 23, 2023, Hawn called NICC to ask about the status of his application. At that point, he learned of the warrant for his arrest. In the early morning hours of March 24, Hawn turned himself in and completed his sentence in CM-1432.

[6] The court held a jury trial in F6-1235 on March 29, 2024. During the trial, NICC Officer Todd Pfafman testified that, if a person wishes to serve a sentence through NICC, that person must submit an application and call NICC to be placed on the interview list, after which the individual will receive a call from him. Then, after the interview, the “common practice” is for an individual to call NICC to “find out whether or not they were accepted.” Tr. at 107. If the individual is accepted, he “would have been instructed” to “come to [the NICC] office, pay a $75.00 intake fee, and [he] would have been scheduled for an intake.” Id. at 107. Officer Pfafman continued that an individual must “complete the entire process prior to a report date” or report to jail. Id. at 99. Officer Pfafman testified that Hawn did not “complete the steps required for community corrections prior to July 22nd of 2022.” Id. at 107.

[7] Hawn testified in his defense and stated that, after his interview, he was told that he was “approved” for community corrections, that he never received a copy of the order denying his request to postpone his start date, and that it was his understanding that NICC “would contact [him] and tell [him his] start date[.]” Id. at 154-55.

[8] At the conclusion of the trial, the jury found Hawn guilty. The court entered judgment of conviction accordingly and sentenced Hawn to one and one-half years, with fifty-two days executed and the remainder suspended to probation. This appeal ensued.

Discussion and Decision

[9] Hawn asserts that the State failed to present sufficient evidence to support his conviction. Our standard of review on a claim of insufficient evidence is well settled:

For a sufficiency of the evidence claim, we look only at the probative evidence and reasonable inferences supporting the verdict. Drane v. State, 867 N.E.2d 144, 146 (Ind. 2007). We do not assess the credibility of witnesses or reweigh the evidence. Id. We will affirm the conviction unless no reasonable fact-finder could find the elements of the crime proven beyond a reasonable doubt. Id.

Love v. State, 73 N.E.3d 693, 696 (Ind. 2017).

[10] To convict Hawn as charged, the State was required to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that he had “knowingly or intentionally fail[ed] to return to lawful detention[.]” Ind. Code § 35-44.1-3-4(d). On appeal, Hawn does not dispute that he failed to report to custody on July 22, 2022. However, he contends that “no evidence was presented that [he] actually knew he had to report to jail on July 22, 2022.” Appellant's Br. at 9. Hawn maintains that he “rationally believed he would serve his sentence through Community Corrections” and, as such, “was unaware of the high probability that he was failing to return to lawful detention.” Id. at 11.

[11] “A person engages in conduct ‘intentionally’ if, when he engages in the conduct, it is his conscious objective to do so.” I.C. § 35-41-2-2(a). “A person engages in conduct ‘knowingly’ if, when he engages in the conduct, he is aware of a high probability that he is doing so.” I.C. § 35-41-2-2(b). Because intent is a mental function, absent a confession, “ ‘it must be determined from a consideration of the conduct, and the natural consequences of the conduct.’ ” Laughlin v. State, 101 N.E.3d 827, 829 (Ind. Ct. App. 2018) (quoting Duren v. State, 720 N.E.2d 1198, 1202 (Ind. Ct. App. 1999), trans. denied). Accordingly, intent often must be proven by circumstantial evidence. Id. To that end, the trier of fact is entitled to infer intent from the surrounding circumstances. White v. State, 772 N.E.2d 408, 413 (Ind. 2002).

[12] On appeal, Hawn asserts that the State failed to prove that he acted with the requisite intent because: he “was told that he was approved for Community Corrections”; he “would need an extension on his report date” in order to participate in that program, which he attempted to secure”; and he “believed that Community Corrections would contact him to let him know when he would begin serving his sentence.” Appellant's Br. at 13.

[13] However, the evidence most favorable to the court's judgment demonstrates that Hawn was sentenced in CM-1432 and that his report date of July 22, 2022, was “discussed in open court.” Tr. at 143. The evidence also demonstrates that Hawn applied for and was interviewed for placement on community corrections, but that Hawn did not complete the mandatory steps of contacting NICC the following Thursday morning to inquire about his status, paying the fee, or scheduling his intake prior to his report date.

[14] In other words, the evidence most favorable to the judgment demonstrates that Hawn was aware of his report date but did not complete the steps required to be placed on community corrections prior to that date. Based on that evidence, a reasonable jury could infer that Hawn knowingly failed to return to lawful detention. Hawn's contentions on appeal are simply requests that we give more weight to his testimony, which we cannot do.

Conclusion

[15] The State presented sufficient evidence to demonstrate that Hawn knowingly or intentionally failed to return to lawful detention. We therefore affirm Hawn's conviction.

[16] Affirmed.

FOOTNOTES

1.   Ind. Code § 35-44.1-3-4(d).

Bailey, Judge.

Judges Bradford and Foley concur. Bradford, J., and Foley, J., concur.