WILSON v. STATE (2025)

MEMORANDUM DECISION

[1] Tykill Nahkeem Qasif Wilson claims that the evidence is insufficient to sustain his conviction for residential entry as a level 6 felony and that his sentence for residential entry and invasion of privacy is inappropriate. We affirm.

Facts and Procedural History

[2] Wilson and C.S. were married on November 9, 2023.¹ Wilson and C.S.’s relationship was “toxic.” Transcript Volume II at 85. On December 9, 2023, Wilson was served with an order prohibiting him from having contact with C.S. On January 3, 2024, C.S. lived in an apartment with her five children. Wilson did not live at the apartment at that time. The apartment lease was in C.S.’s name only, and Wilson did not have a key to the apartment.

[3] On the morning of January 3, 2024, C.S. woke up when she heard noises which sounded like “the window, like the screen opening,” and she saw Wilson “standing over [her] yelling, cussing, making threats.” Id. at 39. C.S.’s children woke up and came to her bedroom door. C.S. told her children to go to their room and close the door. C.S. tried to “calm the situation down and just talk about it and to get him to leave.” Id. at 41. C.S. estimated that “[l]ike an hour, hour and a half” passed. Id. C.S. eventually locked herself in the bathroom and texted the police. She chose to text rather than to call the police “[b]ecause [she] was threatened that if [she] called the police that [she] would be harmed.” Id. at 42.

[4] Columbus Police Officer Kelly Hibbs and other officers responded to the apartment. As she approached the apartment door, Officer Hibbs “could see one of the windows” and observed that “[o]ne of the screens was popped out.” Id. at 51. Officer Hibbs and another officer went to the front door and knocked, and they “could hear the locking mechanism on the door. Someone from the inside of the apartment locked the door.” Id. at 54. The officers advised dispatch that someone locked the door and requested that they send a text message to the victim to come to the door, and C.S. opened the front door. C.S. “pointed to the room on the left, which was the same room that had the window that was ajar.” Id. at 55. Officers gave loud verbal commands to Wilson to exit the room, but received no response. A deputy with a K9 entered the apartment, the deputy announced the presence of the K9 and the dog barked, and Wilson exited the room and was placed in handcuffs.

[5] The State charged Wilson with: Count I, residential entry as a level 6 felony ² ; Count II, domestic battery as a level 6 felony; and Count III, invasion of privacy as a class A misdemeanor.³ The court issued a no contact order prohibiting Wilson from contacting C.S. in person, by telephone or letter, through an intermediary, or in any other way. The court held a jury trial. The court admitted photographs of the window and screen. C.S. testified “[b]oth my doors were locked when I went to sleep.” Id. at 49. Wilson testified and admitted that he violated a no contact order. When asked “[t]here's no question you were there,” Wilson testified “[y]es. I was there.” Id. at 84. He testified that he went to the apartment at 8:00 or 9:00 p.m. on January 2, 2024, that C.S. let him in through the front door, and that he did not leave the apartment until he was taken into custody. He testified that he did not enter through the window and did not remove the screen. On cross-examination, Wilson indicated that he did not have a key to C.S.’s apartment. When asked “you did not live with her, correct,” Wilson replied “I didn't live there. I just spent a lot of time there.” Id. at 87. He indicated C.S.’s five children lived with her in the apartment. The jury found Wilson guilty of residential entry as a level 6 felony in Count I and invasion of privacy as a class A misdemeanor in Count III. The jury did not reach a consensus on Count II, and the court dismissed the count at the State's request.

[6] On May 23, 2024, the court held a sentencing hearing. The prosecutor stated that a new case had been filed, and the court took judicial notice of cause number 03C01-2405-F5-2741 (“Cause No. 2741”).⁴ Wilson indicated that he would be able to live with his grandmother in Indianapolis “when [he] worked through all these cases[.]” Id. at 117. He acknowledged that he had probation violations in connection with a robbery case which ended with him being revoked to the Department of Correction. He also acknowledged that he violated his probation in connection with an obstruction of justice conviction.

[7] Columbus Police Officer Jackson Shepherd testified that Wilson spoke with C.S. on the phone from jail on April 27, 2024, that he listened to the call, and that he identified Wilson and C.S.’s voices.⁵ Wilson stated:

[W]e was just a young couple; a young marriage. I don't think me or her ever actually witnessed or experienced the actual ․ You know, real genuine love or marriage. Like I said, it was just a toxic relationship. I'm not making any excuses for what I've done. I'm taking ownership and accountability for the mistakes I made, and like I said, I just want to put it behind me. I still have feelings for [C.S.]. I said some things I really didn't mean to her. I'm sure she said a lot things she didn't mean to me, and it just was a toxic marriage. That's all it was. We were both young. It was my first time being married. I believe it was [C.S.’s] first time being married, and I understand that she has children, so I understand where she's coming from. I understand she's kind of scorned a little bit, but it was just a toxic marriage that didn't work out. That's all it really was. That's all. I just wanted to put that on record.

Id. at 129. Wilson indicated that he completed a domestic violence course in March 2024. The court asked Wilson why he called C.S. after he took the class, and Wilson replied that he did not know. The court stated “you call her and then you start making comments about you're lame; you're miserable; leave me alone. You called her.” Id. at 130. Wilson stated “I most definitely contacted her,” “I just feel like being that I have been incarcerated for the last four almost five months, and for the most part I haven't been ․ in any contact with [C.S.]. I haven't bothered her,” and “[w]hen we were married everything was all good and she was on my side, but after we're not married anymore I'm just the bad guy all the way around the board.” Id. at 131.

[8] The court found the aggravating circumstances included that Wilson: had no remorse for the crime or his victim; continued to try to contact the victim while incarcerated; had five invasion of privacy cases pending with the same victim; has a lack of understanding of how his conduct affects others; was aware children were present at the time of the crime; has a prior criminal history of violent crimes; and has had prior treatment which has proven unsuccessful. The court did not find any mitigating circumstances. The court imposed consecutive sentences of 912 days for residential entry and 365 days for invasion of privacy.

Discussion

I.

[9] Wilson argues that C.S. permitted him to enter her apartment through the front door on January 2, 2024, and that he did not enter through a window or touch the screen or window. He argues that C.S. claimed the doors to her apartment were locked when she went to sleep but that law enforcement heard someone inside the apartment lock the door by turning the bolt. He asserts the evidence was insufficient to show that he broke and entered the apartment and that, “[a]s an invited guest, [he] cannot be convicted of residential entry.” Appellant's Brief at 12.

[10] When reviewing claims of insufficiency of the evidence, we do not reweigh the evidence or judge the credibility of witnesses. Jordan v. State, 656 N.E.2d 816, 817 (Ind. 1995), reh'g denied. We look to the evidence and the reasonable inferences therefrom that support the verdict. Id. The conviction will be affirmed if there exists evidence of probative value from which a reasonable jury could find the defendant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. Id.

[11] Ind. Code § 35-43-2-1.5 provides that a person who knowingly or intentionally breaks and enters the dwelling of another person commits residential entry as a level 6 felony. A person engages in conduct “intentionally” if, when he engages in the conduct, it is his conscious objective to do so, and 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. Ind. Code § 35-41-2-2. In order to establish that a breaking has occurred, the State need only introduce evidence from which the trier of fact could reasonably infer that the slightest force was used to gain unauthorized entry. McKinney v. State, 653 N.E.2d 115, 117 (Ind. Ct. App. 1995). The opening of an unlocked door is sufficient. Id. “Lack of consent is not an element of the offense the State is required to prove.” Id. at 118. “Rather, it is the defendant who must claim and prove the defense of consent.” Id. “A defendant's belief that he has permission to enter must be reasonable in order for the defendant to avail himself of the defense of consent.” Id.

[12] The evidence most favorable to the conviction reveals that Wilson did not have a key to C.S.’s apartment, that the doors to C.S.’s apartment were locked when she went to sleep, that she woke up when she heard noises which sounded like “the window, like the screen opening,” and that she saw Wilson “standing over [her.]” Transcript Volume II at 39. Officer Hibbs testified regarding her observation of the window and that “[o]ne of the screens was popped out.” Id. at 51. The court admitted photographs of the window and screen. While Wilson claimed that he had C.S.’s permission to enter her apartment and that he did not break and enter the apartment, there is ample evidence that was not the case. We will not reweigh the evidence or judge the credibility of witnesses. Jordan, 656 N.E.2d at 817. We conclude that sufficient evidence exists from which the jury as the trier of fact could find Wilson guilty beyond a reasonable doubt of residential entry as a level 6 felony.

II.

[13] Wilson argues his sentence is inappropriate. He argues the nature of the offense did not exceed the statutory elements and did not warrant a sentence reserved for the worst of the worst offenders. He argues that he was twenty-seven years old at the time of sentencing, lived with his grandmother, took responsibility for his conduct, completed a domestic violence class while incarcerated, and admitted to participating in the phone calls.

[14] Ind. Appellate Rule 7(B) provides that we “may revise a sentence authorized by statute if, after due consideration of the trial court's decision, [we find] that the sentence is inappropriate in light of the nature of the offense and the character of the offender.” Under this rule, the burden is on the defendant to persuade the appellate court that his or her sentence is inappropriate. Childress v. State, 848 N.E.2d 1073, 1080 (Ind. 2006). “[W]hether we regard a sentence as appropriate at the end of the day turns on our sense of the culpability of the defendant, the severity of the crime, the damage done to others, and myriad other factors that come to light in a given case.” Cardwell v. State, 895 N.E.2d 1219, 1225 (Ind. 2008).

[15] Ind. Code § 35-50-2-7 provides that a person who commits a level 6 felony shall be imprisoned for a fixed term of between six months and two and one-half years with the advisory sentence being one year. Ind. Code § 35-50-3-2 provides that a person who commits a class A misdemeanor shall be imprisoned for a fixed term of not more than one year. The Indiana Supreme Court has noted that the maximum possible sentences are generally most appropriate for the worst offenders. Buchanan v. State, 767 N.E.2d 967, 973 (Ind. 2002). The Court further stated “[t]his is not, however, a guideline to determine whether a worse offender could be imagined,” “[d]espite the nature of any particular offense and offender, it will always be possible to identify or hypothesize a significantly more despicable scenario,” and “[a]lthough maximum sentences are ordinarily appropriate for the worst offenders, we refer generally to the class of offenses and offenders that warrant the maximum punishment. But such class encompasses a considerable variety of offenses and offenders.” Id.

[16] Our review of the nature of the offenses reveals that a no contact order prohibited Wilson from contacting C.S., that Wilson did not have a key to C.S.’s apartment, and that C.S. woke up when she heard “the window, like the screen opening” and saw Wilson “standing over [her] yelling, cussing, making threats.” Transcript Volume II at 39. C.S.’s children woke up and came to her bedroom door. C.S. testified that she tried to “calm the situation down” and “to get him to leave” and estimated that “an hour, hour and a half” passed. Id. at 41. C.S. locked herself in the bathroom and texted the police “[b]ecause [she] was threatened that if [she] called the police that [she] would be harmed.” Id. at 42. When the police arrived, Wilson did not exit C.S.’s room until a deputy announced the presence of a K9.

[17] Our review of the character of the offender reveals that Wilson, who was born in March 1997, was adjudicated delinquent as a juvenile for escape in 2012 and robbery in 2014. The presentence investigation report (“PSI”) indicates his adult criminal history includes robbery as a level 3 felony in 2015 for which he was sentenced to six years with three years executed, possession of marijuana as a class B misdemeanor in 2018, two counts of driving while suspended as class A misdemeanors in 2021, and obstruction of justice as a level 6 felony and invasion of privacy as a class A misdemeanor in 2022. The PSI also indicates Wilson had pending charges for dealing in cocaine, two counts of intimidation, domestic battery, and four counts of invasion of privacy. The court also noted that Wilson had a case pending in Cause No. 2741. The PSI further indicates, and Wilson acknowledged, that he previously violated his probation or placement. Wilson completed a domestic violence course. He also spoke with C.S. on a three-way call from jail despite the court's no contact orders and the multiple invasion of privacy charges against him. After due consideration, we conclude that Wilson has not sustained his burden of establishing that his sentence is inappropriate in light of the nature of the offenses and his character.

[18] For the foregoing reasons, we affirm Wilson's conviction for residential entry as a level 6 felony and his aggregate sentence.

[19] Affirmed.

FOOTNOTES

1.   C.S. testified that their divorce became final on March 21, 2024.

2.   Count I alleged that Wilson did knowingly or intentionally break and enter the dwelling of C.S.

3.   Count III alleged that Wilson knowingly violated an order issued in cause number 03C01-2311-F6-6104 (“Cause No. 6104”) to protect C.S.

4.   On May 16, 2024, the State charged Wilson with attempted obstruction of justice as a level 5 felony, attempted invasion of privacy as a level 6 felony, and attempted battery resulting in moderate bodily injury as a level 6 felony in Cause No. 2741.

5.   When asked “that's a three way call basically where he calls someone and then that person calls [C.S.],” Officer Shepherd replied: “Yes that's correct. [ ] Wilson's account called the C Hicks account and then the C Hicks account then called [C.S.].” Transcript Volume II at 126.

Brown, Judge.

Altice, C.J., and Tavitas, J., concur.