Pursuant to Ind. Appellate Rule 65(D), this Memorandum Decision shall not be regarded as precedent or cited before any court except for the purpose of establishing the defense of res judicata, collateral estoppel, or the law of the case.
Statement of the Case
Lorie Bohannon appeals her conviction for theft, as a Level 6 felony, following a bench trial. Bohannon raises seven issues for our review, but we consider only the following three issues:
Facts and Procedural History
On February 5, 2015, Bohannon went to the Beech Grove Walmart and proceeded with a number of items to the self-scan checkout station. There, Bohannon placed a stack of steaks, valued at $140, which she had placed inside one plastic bag, on the scanner such that only the bottom steak was scanned. Bohannon then placed the steaks back in her shopping cart and proceeded to exit the building. At the exit, Kristopher Britton and another Walmart employee, who both had observed Bohannon's actions, stopped her, and police, who had already arrived, arrested Bohannon.
The State charged Bohannon with theft, as a Level 6 felony.
Following Britton's testimony and description of the video evidence, Bohannon testified in her own defense. She stated that, while it looked like she was attempting to leave the Walmart with unpaid goods, she was actually "waitin[g] on my brother to come so that I could pay" for those items. Id. at 62. Bohannon's brother also testified and confirmed that Bohannon had texted him and mentioned the unpurchased meat.
The court found Bohannon guilty as charged. According to the court:
Id. at 85-86. The court entered its judgment of conviction and sentenced Bohannon accordingly. This appeal ensued.
Discussion and Decision
Issue One: Admission of Evidence
We first consider Bohannon's argument on appeal that the trial court erred when it "allow[ed] the video evidence to be admitted without being completely viewed, not being complete footage of the defendant in the store, and played at a faster[-]than[-]real[-]time speed. . . ." Appellant's Br. at 11. We generally review the trial court's decision to admit evidence for an abuse of discretion. E.g., McManus v. State, 814 N.E.2d 253, 264 (Ind. 2004). But Bohannon did not object to the State's request to admit the video evidence. Bohannon also did not object when the trial court proposed to watch the video at an accelerated speed. As such, Bohannon has not preserved this issue for appellate review, and we will not consider it.
Issue Two: Sufficiency of the Evidence
We next consider Bohannon's argument that the State failed to present sufficient evidence to support her conviction.
To show that Bohannon committed theft, as a Level 6 felony, the State was required to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Bohannon knowingly or intentionally exerted unauthorized control over the property of another person, with the intent to deprive the other person of any part of its value or use, and that she had a prior unrelated conviction for theft or criminal conversion. Ind. Code § 35-43-4-2(a)(1)(C) (2014). On appeal, Bohannon asserts only that the State failed to prove that she intended to deprive Walmart of the value or use of the steaks.
We cannot agree. The evidence shows that Bohannon passed a stack of steaks over a self-scan checkout such that only the bottom steak was scanned. Bohannon then placed all the steaks in her shopping cart and went past security checkmarks to the store's exit. The trial court was free to conclude that that evidence demonstrated Bohannon's intent to deprive Walmart of the value or use of the steaks. Bohannon's argument to the contrary on appeal simply asks us to reweigh the evidence to give her self-serving testimony controlling weight, which we will not do. The State presented sufficient evidence to support Bohannon's conviction.
Issue Three: Effective Assistance of Counsel
Bohannon next asserts that her trial counsel rendered ineffective assistance.
Humphrey v. State, 73 N.E.3d 677, 682 (Ind. 2017).
According to Bohannon, her trial counsel rendered ineffective assistance because he did not present evidence to show that Bohannon was allergic to shellfish, which (according to Bohannon) would have made it unlikely that she would have stolen a bag of shrimp. Bohannon further asserts that her counsel rendered ineffective assistance because he did not introduce documents that would have shown that "all but 4 of the items alleged . . . were indeed paid for." Appellant's Br. at 10.
Bohannon has not demonstrated ineffective assistance of counsel. Even if we were to accept Bohannon's argument on appeal, the fact remains that the State showed that Bohannon attempted to leave Walmart with numerous, unpaid-for steaks. That was enough to support Bohannon's conviction, and her challenge to her counsel's assistance does not affect that evidence. In other words, Bohannon has presented no cogent argument to show that any error in her counsel's conduct resulted in prejudice to her. Thus, we reject Bohannon's argument.
In sum, we affirm Bohannon's conviction for theft, as a Level 6 felony.
Kirsch, J., and Brown, J., concur.