Melvin D. Levy v. State of Indiana (mem. dec.)
20A03-1608-CR-2009
| Ind. Ct. App. | Jan 30, 2017Background
- Police executed a no‑knock search warrant at 916 S. Main St.; officers secured six occupants, including Melvin D. Levy.
- Levy was found under a living‑room pool table; officers later searched the second‑floor southwest bedroom Levy identified as his.
- In the bedroom officers found cocaine (inside a gray winter hat), synthetic marijuana (in a shoe), marijuana, scales, baggies, ammunition, and letters bearing Levy’s name and address.
- Levy was charged with possession of cocaine (enhanced to a Level 4 felony), possession of a synthetic drug (Class A misdemeanor), and possession of marijuana (Class B misdemeanor); he was convicted by jury and admitted a prior dealing conviction for enhancement purposes.
- The trial court sentenced Levy to an aggregate executed term of eight years (ten years with two suspended); the court found prior criminal history and repeated probation violations as aggravators and found no mitigators.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sufficiency of evidence for constructive possession of cocaine | State: evidence showed Levy lived in the room, items linked to him were near the drugs, and indicia of dealing supported constructive possession | Levy: no proof he knew about the cocaine, no exclusive control of room, not near the drugs when found | Court: Affirmed. Letters with Levy’s name near drugs and his admitted residence in the room supported knowledge and capability to control; constructive possession proven |
| Appropriateness of sentence under App. R. 7(B) | State: sentence justified by drug quantity, paraphernalia, prior convictions, probation violations, and offenses committed while on bond | Levy: sentence above advisory 6‑year term was inappropriate given multiple occupants and his family/employment ties | Court: Affirmed. Nature of offense and significant criminal history made the 10/8‑year sentence not inappropriate |
Key Cases Cited
- Sargent v. State, 27 N.E.3d 729 (Ind. 2015) (distinguishes actual and constructive possession standards)
- Gray v. State, 957 N.E.2d 171 (Ind. 2011) (constructive possession requires capability and intent to control)
- Crocker v. State, 989 N.E.2d 812 (Ind. Ct. App. 2013) (knowledge may be inferred from exclusive control or additional circumstances)
- Taylor v. State, 482 N.E.2d 259 (Ind. 1985) (knowledge inference when control is nonexclusive)
- Jones v. State, 807 N.E.2d 58 (Ind. Ct. App. 2004) (lists additional circumstances for inferring knowledge of contraband)
- Perkins v. State, 57 N.E.3d 861 (Ind. Ct. App. 2016) (standard for sufficiency review—no reweighing of evidence)
- Holt v. State, 62 N.E.3d 462 (Ind. Ct. App. 2016) (Appellate Rule 7(B) review framework)
- Anglemyer v. State, 868 N.E.2d 482 (Ind. 2007) (sentencing discretion and appellate review principles)
- Cardwell v. State, 895 N.E.2d 1219 (Ind. 2008) (factors for assessing sentence appropriateness)