Deandre S. Sneed, Jr., Appellant-Defendant v. State of Indiana, Appellee-Plaintiff (2025)

MEMORANDUM DECISION

Case Summary

[1] Deandre Sneed appeals his conviction for burglary, a Level 1 felony. Sneed argues that insufficient evidence supports his conviction because the State failed to prove that he broke and entered with the intent to commit a felony or theft. We disagree and, accordingly, affirm.

Issue

[2] Sneed raises one issue, which we restate as whether the State presented sufficient evidence to demonstrate that Sneed broke and entered with the intent to commit a felony or theft to support Sneed's conviction for burglary.

Facts

[3] On November 28, 2021, Anthony Leadford was living in an apartment in Converse, Indiana, with his girlfriend, Sophie Beckner, and her two children. Anthony often used Sophie's cellphone, and on that day, Sophie received a Facebook Message from a person named Ben Jones regarding money Anthony owed for marijuana. Anthony told Sophie to block the account.

[4] Later that night, Jones drove to Anthony's apartment with a friend, Aryan Vandiver-Stone. Jones knocked on the door, and Anthony told him to leave because Anthony did not have the money he owed. Jones told Anthony that “they would be back.” Tr. Vol. III p. 187.

[5] Jones and Vandiver-Stone drove to Marion, Indiana, where they met up with Danuia Harris and then-fifteen-year-old Sneed. The four equipped themselves with firearms and, riding in two separate vehicles, returned to Converse to discuss their “next steps[.]” Tr. Vol. V p. 195. Sneed was “involved in this conversation.” Id. at 196. Vandiver-Stone indicated that he was going to break into the apartment to “get money and steal things,” and Sneed agreed to participate in doing so. Id. at 30. Vandiver-Stone agreed to split the money with Harris and Sneed in exchange for their help.

[6] The four then drove to Anthony's apartment, Vandiver-Stone kicked the door in, and the group entered. Sneed covered his face with a ski mask. Sophie awoke and heard one of the men tell her, “Don't move.” Tr. Vol. III p. 188. Three of the men were in the bedroom pointing firearms at her, and another was in the kitchen. Id. at 190. When Sophie expressed concern about the safety of her children, Sneed told her, “Then I wouldn't move.” Id. at 191.

[7] Another person in the group was going “in and out of” the room and said, “Take everything of value. Take the tv.” Id. Jones pointed out a power drill in the kitchen, and Sneed placed it in his backpack. One of the group members started to grab Sophie's cellphone and car keys, and when she protested, the group again pointed their guns at her. Anthony “jumped up to protect [Sophie],” several gunshots were fired, and Anthony was hit in the head, torso, and arms. Id. at 192. The group ran, and Sophie used a neighbor's phone to call 911. Officers arrived at the scene, where Anthony was pronounced dead. Sophie's cellphone was discovered in a ditch beside the road approximately half a mile outside of Converse.

[8] During the ensuing investigation, surveillance footage from near Anthony's apartment captured video of two cars pulling into the parking lot behind the apartment around 8:00 p.m. that night. A “be on the lookout for” or “BOLO” alert was issued for Vandiver-Stone and his vehicle. Tr. Vol. IV p. 118. The next day, on November 29, 2021, the vehicle was located. Inside the vehicle, officers located Vandiver-Stone, Harris, Sneed, and a backpack containing a drill. Sneed was wearing a knit cap that, when pulled down, resembled a ski mask.

[9] The group was arrested and taken to the police station for interviews. Sneed denied involvement in the crime. Law enforcement officers discovered a Taurus handgun hidden in Sneed's pants during the interview. Later, ballistic testing indicated that one of the bullets recovered from Anthony's body was fired from that Taurus handgun. An investigation of Sneed's Internet search history revealed that he searched “taurus g2s barrel” and shared a photograph of a Taurus handgun the day before the shooting on social media. Ex. Vol. VIII p. 81, 99. On the night of the shooting, Sneed searched on the Internet for “marion scanner,” “grant county police scanner,” and “channel 27 news marion Indiana[.]” Id. at 100-01.

[10] On January 5, 2022, the State charged Sneed as an adult with four counts: Count I, murder, a felony; Count II, burglary, a Level 1 felony; Count III, robbery resulting in serious bodily injury, a Level 2 felony; and Count IV, robbery, a Level 5 felony. The State later amended the information to allege Count V, felony murder.

[11] A jury trial commenced in October 2024. Vandiver-Stone and Harris accepted plea agreements and testified as witnesses for the State. Vandiver-Stone testified that he asked Harris and Sneed to help Vandiver-Stone and Jones “[r]ob Anthony,” and both agreed. Tr. Vol. V p. 20. Sneed carried a firearm during the robbery and wore a ski mask. The group stole the drill and Sophie's cellphone and threw the cellphone out the car window on their way home. Harris testified that Sneed was present when Vandiver-Stone asked for their help in robbing Anthony. Although Sneed called Jones to testify as a witness for the defense, Jones testified that Sneed was present when Vandiver-Stone discussed his plans for the robbery and that Sneed covered his face with a mask and helped steal the drill.

[12] The jury found Sneed guilty of Count II, burglary, a Level 1 felony; Count III, robbery resulting in serious bodily injury, a Level 2 felony; and Count IV, robbery, a Level 5 felony, and not guilty of Count I, murder; and Count V, felony murder. The trial court entered judgment of conviction solely on Count II due to double jeopardy principles and sentenced Sneed to thirty-five years in the Department of Correction. Sneed now appeals.

Discussion and Decision

[13] Sneed argues that insufficient evidence supports his conviction for burglary, a Level 1 felony, because the State failed to demonstrate that he broke and entered the apartment with the intent to commit a felony or theft therein. We disagree.

[14] Sufficiency of the evidence claims warrant a deferential standard of review in which we “neither reweigh the evidence nor judge witness credibility, instead reserving those matters to the province of the jury.” Hancz-Barron v. State, 235 N.E.3d 1237, 1244 (Ind. 2024). A conviction is supported by sufficient evidence if “there is substantial evidence of probative value supporting each element of the offense such that a reasonable trier of fact could have found the defendant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.” Id. In conducting this review, we consider only the evidence that supports the jury's determination, not evidence that might undermine it. Id. We affirm the conviction “ ‘unless no reasonable fact-finder could find the elements of the crime proven beyond a reasonable doubt. It is therefore not necessary that the evidence overcome every reasonable hypothesis of innocence. The evidence is sufficient if an inference may reasonably be drawn from it to support the verdict.’ ” Sutton v. State, 167 N.E.3d 800, 801 (Ind. Ct. App. 2021) (quoting Drane v. State, 867 N.E.2d 144, 146-47 (Ind. 2007)).

[15] Burglary is governed by Indiana Code Section 35-43-2-1, which provides, in relevant part:

A person who breaks and enters the building or structure of another person, with intent to commit a felony or theft in it, commits burglary, a Level 5 felony. However, the offense is:

* * * * *

(4) a Level 1 felony if:

(A) the building or structure is a dwelling; and

(B) it results in serious bodily injury to any person other than a defendant.

[16] Sneed concedes that he broke and entered Anthony's apartment; he contests only the requirement that he did so with the intent to commit a felony or theft therein. To establish this intent element, the State must prove beyond a reasonable doubt the defendant's intent to commit a felony or theft as specified in the charging information. Brown v. State, 64 N.E.3d 1219, 1230 (Ind. Ct. App. 2016) (citing Freshwater v. State, 853 N.E.2d 941, 942 (Ind. 2006)), trans. denied. Here, the State alleged that Sneed broke and entered Anthony's apartment with the intent to commit “Robbery and/or Intimidation with a Deadly Weapon and/or theft,” so the State needed to prove that Sneed intended to commit at least one of these offenses at the time of the illegal entry. Appellant's App. Vol. II p. 41.

[17] A defendant's intent to commit a felony or theft after breaking and entering a home “may be inferred from the circumstances.” Smith v. State, 210 N.E.3d 312, 321 (Ind. Ct. App. 2023) (quoting Baker v. State, 968 N.E.2d 227, 229 (Ind. 2012)). “The evidentiary inference pointing to the defendant's intent must be separate from the inference of the defendant's breaking and entering.” Baker, 968 N.E.2d at 230 (emphasis in original). That is to say, the mere fact that the defendant broke and entered a residence is not alone sufficient to prove the defendant's intent; intent must be proven “independently.” Id. The evidence of intent “ ‘need not be insurmountable,’ ” but there must be a “ ‘specific fact that provides a solid basis to support a reasonable inference’ ” of the defendant's intent. Id. (quoting Gilliam v. State, 508 N.E.2d 1270, 1271 (Ind. 1987)); Freshwater, 853 N.E.2d at 944.

[18] The State presented sufficient evidence that Sneed broke and entered with the intent to commit theft. Theft is the knowing or intentional exertion of “unauthorized control over property of another person, with intent to deprive the other person of any part of its value or use[.]” Ind. Code § 35-43-4-2. The evidence shows that Sneed agreed to help Vandiver-Stone “get money and steal things” in exchange for a cut of the proceeds; Sneed wore a mask and was armed with a firearm when he entered the apartment; and Sneed was present when directions to “[t]ake everything of value” were announced inside the apartment. See Williams v. State, 983 N.E.2d 661, 669 (Ind. Ct. App. 2013) (holding sufficient evidence supported intent element of burglary when, prior to the illegal entry, defendant discussed “breaking into [victim's] house and stealing money, marijuana, and guns”).

[19] Additionally, Jones testified that Sneed participated in stealing a drill from the apartment, and a drill was discovered in Vandiver-Stone's vehicle after the burglary. See Finley v. State, 525 N.E.2d 608, 609-10 (Ind. 1988) (holding that defendant's theft of television from house in which he broke and entered supported intent element of burglary); Patterson v. State, 729 N.E.2d 1035, 1042 (Ind. Ct. App. 2000) (“[P]ossession of stolen property will support an inference of intent to commit theft at the time of a breaking and entering.”).

[20] Sneed argues that Vandiver-Stone's testimony was self-serving, and he points out conflicting testimony in the record. We, however, entrust the jury with determining witness credibility, and we do not reweigh evidence on appeal. Hancz-Barron, 235 N.E.3d at 1244. The cases which Sneed cites in his brief are easily distinguishable; in these cases, the defendant did not actually steal property. See Freshwater, 853 N.E.2d 941; Justice v. State, 530 N.E.2d 295 (Ind. 1988); Gebhart v. State, 531 N.E.2d 211 (Ind. 1988). Here, the State presented specific evidence that Sneed: (1) knew the purpose of the burglary was to take property; (2) wore a mask to hide his face; (3) carried a gun; and (4) stole a drill after breaking and entering into the apartment. Sufficient evidence, thus, supports Sneed's conviction for burglary, a Level 1 felony.

Conclusion

[21] The State presented sufficient evidence to support Sneed's conviction for burglary. Accordingly, we affirm.

[22] Affirmed.

Tavitas, Judge.

Judges Vaidik and Felix concur. Vaidik, J., and Felix, J., concur.