Rodney Craft, Appellant-Defendant v. State of Indiana, Appellee-Plaintiff (2025)

MEMORANDUM DECISION

[1] Rodney Craft appeals his conviction of Level 2 felony dealing in methamphetamine.¹ He contends the State did not present sufficient evidence that he committed the crime as charged. We affirm.

Facts and Procedural History

[2] On February 8, 2024, deputies from the Starke County Sheriff's Office conducted a traffic stop and discovered that the driver, who was alone in the car, possessed a small quantity of marijuana. That driver offered to provide “narcotics information” (Tr. Vol. II at 169), in exchange for “some leniency in regards to [his] own trouble.” (Id. at 163.) The driver subsequently spoke with Detective David Combs of the Starke County Sheriff's Office and told Detective Combs that he “knew Rodney Craft and [he] could purchase drugs from him.” (Id. at 158.) The driver agreed to be a confidential informant (“CI”) and purchase drugs from Craft.

[3] Detective Combs spoke with the CI further. The CI could “describe ․ where Rodney Craft's house was ․ what kind of vehicles he drove, things of that nature[.]” (Id.) The CI told Detective Combs that he had been to Craft's house before. The CI called Craft and “ask[ed] him if he was going to be home and that [the CI] wanted to stop by and get some stuff from him, some drugs.” (Id. at 160.) The CI and Craft agreed the CI would “pick up an ounce from [Craft]” and they would “talk about it when [he] got there[.]” (Id.)

[4] Prior to leaving the police station, Detective Combs searched the CI and another deputy searched the CI's vehicle. Detective Combs gave the CI $240 in cash to buy the methamphetamine from Craft. Detective Combs also fitted the CI with a listening device. The CI left to go to Craft's residence. An officer followed him.

[5] When he arrived at Craft's house, the CI went inside and spoke with Craft, who, after giving the CI a bag of purported methamphetamine, told the CI that they “would settle up at a later time, meaning that [the CI] would pay him another time ․ [because there were] people at [Craft's] house ․ [and Craft] didn't ․ want [the CI] to hand over money in front of them.” (Id. at 162.) The CI left Craft's house and drove back to the police station. An officer followed the CI back to the police station.

[6] When he arrived at the police station, detectives again searched the CI and his car. The CI “turned over a bag of white crystal substance” that was later determined to be 27.94 grams of methamphetamine and the $240 in buy money to Detective Combs. (Id. at 172.) The CI explained that Craft would not take payment at the time of the sale and indicated Craft wanted the CI to pay at another time.

[7] On February 13, 2024, the State charged Craft with Level 2 felony dealing in methamphetamine,² and Level 4 felony possession of methamphetamine in an amount between ten and twenty-eight grams.³ The trial court held a jury trial on November 13, 2024. At trial the CI testified he knew Craft and that Craft sold methamphetamine. He told the jury he agreed to buy methamphetamine from Craft as a CI and received $240 from Detective Combs to do so. In describing what he told Detective Combs about the controlled buy once he returned to the police station afterwards, the CI testified:

They wanted to know everything that happened and was said [so that they could] confirm it with the recording that they had from what took place. So we went over all that. I explained to [Detective Combs] where [Craft] was sitting when I went in the house and that [Craft] had said that we would settle up at a later time, meaning that I'd pay him at another time. He had people at his house when I went there, so he didn't want to – want me to hand over money in front of them. And yeah – and then I explained to them how – how everything happened in the house, and then that was it.

(Id. at 162.)

[8] The jury returned guilty verdicts as to Level 2 felony dealing in methamphetamine and Level 4 possession of methamphetamine in an amount between ten and twenty-eight grams. The trial court entered a conviction of level 2 felony dealing in methamphetamine.⁴ On February 10, 2025, the trial court held a sentencing hearing and sentenced Craft to seventeen and a half years incarcerated in the Indiana Department of Correction.

Discussion and Decision

[9] Craft argues the State did not present sufficient evidence that he committed Level 2 dealing in methamphetamine. Specifically, Craft asserts the State failed to prove Craft was the one who delivered the methamphetamine to the CI because the CI did not testify that he received the methamphetamine directly from Craft. When faced with challenges to the sufficiency of evidence, we apply a “well settled” standard of review that leaves determination of the weight of the evidence and credibility of the witnesses to the fact-finder. Teising v. State, 226 N.E.3d 780, 783 (Ind. 2024). “We consider only the evidence most favorable to the trial court's ruling and will affirm a defendant's conviction unless ‘no reasonable fact-finder could find the elements of the crime proven beyond a reasonable doubt.’ ” Id. (quoting Jenkins v. State, 726 N.E.2d 268, 270 (Ind. 2000)). A “reasonable inference of guilt must be more than a mere suspicion, conjecture, conclusion, guess, opportunity, or scintilla.” Willis v. State, 27 N.E.3d 1065, 1068 (Ind. 2015) (quoting Mediate v. State, 498 N.E.2d 391, 393 (Ind. 1986).

[10] To prove Craft committed Level 2 felony dealing in methamphetamine, the State had to present evidence that he knowingly or intentionally delivered at least ten grams of pure or adulterated methamphetamine. See Ind. Code § 35-48-4-1.1(a)(1) & Ind. Code § 35-48-4-1.1(e)(1).

[11] Here, the CI knew Craft, knew where Craft lived, and was able to contact Craft by phone. The CI testified he called Craft and asked if the CI could “stop by and get some stuff from [Craft], some drugs.” (Id. at 160.) The CI testified that Craft agreed and would determine the price for the drugs upon the CI's arrival at Craft's house. Detective Combs and the CI testified that before the CI left the police station to go to Craft's house, Detective Combs searched the CI's person and car and fitted the CI with a listening device. Detective Combs and the CI testified that other officers followed the CI to and from Craft's house. Detective Combs testified there was another detective stationed near Craft's house to observe the CI. When the CI returned, Detective Combs searched him again. The CI and Detective Combs both testified also gave Detective Combs a “bag of white crystal substance” (id. at 172), and the $240 in buy money, explaining that Craft wanted to receive payment at a later date because he did not want the people at his house see him dealing drugs.

[12] Based on the testimony by the CI and Detective Combs, there existed circumstantial evidence that Craft gave the CI the methamphetamine that the CI ultimately turned over to Detective Combs. See Stokes v. State, 801 N.E.2d 1263, 1271-2 (Ind. Ct. App. 2004) (circumstantial evidence “does not have to overcome every reasonable hypothesis of innocence but need only general a reasonable inference of guilt”), trans. denied. Craft's argument is an invitation to reweigh the evidence and judge the credibility of witnesses, which we cannot do. Teising, 226 N.E.3d at 783 (appellate court cannot reweigh evidence or judge the credibility of witnesses). Therefore, we conclude the State presented sufficient evidence to prove Craft committed Level 2 felony dealing in methamphetamine. See, e.g., Hale v. State, 875 Ne.2d 438, 445 (Ind. Ct. App. 2007) (the State presented sufficient evidence that CI bought cocaine because, in part, police searched the CI before he bought cocaine from Hale, gave the CI money to buy cocaine, and the CI returned after the controlled buy with cocaine), trans. denied.

Conclusion

[13] The State presented sufficient evidence that Craft committed Level 2 felony dealing in methamphetamine. Accordingly, we affirm.

[14] Affirmed.

FOOTNOTES

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

2.   Ind. Code § 35-48-4-6.1 & Ind. Code § 35-48-4-6.1(d)(1).

3.   The State also charged Craft with Level 3 felony possession of methamphetamine in an amount greater than twenty-eight grams. See Ind. Code § 35-48-4-6.1 & Ind. Code § 35-48-4-6.1(c)(1). However, after the parties presented evidence, Craft moved for a directed verdict as to the Level 3 felony possession of methamphetamine in an amount greater than twenty-eight grams charge because there was no evidence that Craft possessed more than twenty-eight grams of methamphetamine. The trial court granted Craft's motion and dismissed the Level 3 felony count.

4.   The trial court did not enter a conviction for the Level 4 possession crime due to double jeopardy concerns.

May, Judge.

Judges Mathias and Bradford concur. Mathias, J., and Bradford, J., concur.