ILNews

Court upholds conviction for theft of water heater

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

The Indiana Court of Appeals dismissed a man’s argument that he didn’t know he couldn’t take a water heater from an Indianapolis apartment complex to scrap, finding that the evidence supports his theft conviction.

Charles Mitchell and two men were attempting to break up and take a water heater that was in the grass on the property when an apartment employee and the assistant manager told them to stop. The men told Susan Revak, the assistant manager, that a “big Hispanic supervisor” told them they could take it, but no such employee worked for the complex.

The men tried to drive away, but Revak jumped in front of their truck and ordered an employee to call the police. The men pulled over and stopped.

Mitchell was charged with Class D felony theft and Class A misdemeanor criminal mischief, but he was only convicted of theft. Marion Superior Judge Rueben Hill gave him the advisory sentence of one-and-one-half years, with all but 60 days suspended to probation.

Mitchell argued that his conviction can’t stand because he didn’t know the men couldn’t take the water heater. He was relying on information given to him by one of the men, Virgil Jones, who claimed they were allowed to take the heater.

The Court of Appeals pointed out that any belief Mitchell had that he could take the water heater became unreasonable when Revak unequivocally told them that no one with the apartment complex had given permission to take the water heater and to take it out of the truck.

The imposition of the advisory sentence was also appropriate, the judges held, as Mitchell failed to prove otherwise.

The case is Charles Mitchell v. State of Indiana, 49A02-1202-CR-125.

 

ADVERTISEMENT

  • Really, bad use of system
    Who is the lawyer and where did a theft get COA funds for a water heater theft? I have had six burglaries at a retail location and can't get a police report updated, any items back, a police investigation. This has got to be the worst incident of backing a system up to the harm of others.

Post a comment to this story

COMMENTS POLICY
We reserve the right to remove any post that we feel is obscene, profane, vulgar, racist, sexually explicit, abusive, or hateful.
 
You are legally responsible for what you post and your anonymity is not guaranteed.
 
Posts that insult, defame, threaten, harass or abuse other readers or people mentioned in Indiana Lawyer editorial content are also subject to removal. Please respect the privacy of individuals and refrain from posting personal information.
 
No solicitations, spamming or advertisements are allowed. Readers may post links to other informational websites that are relevant to the topic at hand, but please do not link to objectionable material.
 
We may remove messages that are unrelated to the topic, encourage illegal activity, use all capital letters or are unreadable.
 

Messages that are flagged by readers as objectionable will be reviewed and may or may not be removed. Please do not flag a post simply because you disagree with it.

Sponsored by
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. Indiana's seatbelt law is not punishable as a crime. It is an infraction. Apparently some of our Circuit judges have deemed settled law inapplicable if it fails to fit their litmus test of political correctness. Extrapolating to redefine terms of behavior in a violation of immigration law to the entire body of criminal law leaves a smorgasbord of opportunity for judicial mischief.

  2. I wonder if $10 diversions for failure to wear seat belts are considered moral turpitude in federal immigration law like they are under Indiana law? Anyone know?

  3. What a fine article, thank you! I can testify firsthand and by detailed legal reports (at end of this note) as to the dire consequences of rejecting this truth from the fine article above: "The inclusion and expansion of this right [to jury] in Indiana’s Constitution is a clear reflection of our state’s intention to emphasize the importance of every Hoosier’s right to make their case in front of a jury of their peers." Over $20? Every Hoosier? Well then how about when your very vocation is on the line? How about instead of a jury of peers, one faces a bevy of political appointees, mini-czars, who care less about due process of the law than the real czars did? Instead of trial by jury, trial by ideological ordeal run by Orwellian agents? Well that is built into more than a few administrative law committees of the Ind S.Ct., and it is now being weaponized, as is revealed in articles posted at this ezine, to root out post moderns heresies like refusal to stand and pledge allegiance to all things politically correct. My career was burned at the stake for not so saluting, but I think I was just one of the early logs. Due, at least in part, to the removal of the jury from bar admission and bar discipline cases, many more fires will soon be lit. Perhaps one awaits you, dear heretic? Oh, at that Ind. article 12 plank about a remedy at law for every damage done ... ah, well, the founders evidently meant only for those damages done not by the government itself, rabid statists that they were. (Yes, that was sarcasm.) My written reports available here: Denied petition for cert (this time around): http://tinyurl.com/zdmawmw Denied petition for cert (from the 2009 denial and five year banishment): http://tinyurl.com/zcypybh Related, not written by me: Amicus brief: http://tinyurl.com/hvh7qgp

  4. Justice has finally been served. So glad that Dr. Ley can finally sleep peacefully at night knowing the truth has finally come to the surface.

  5. While this right is guaranteed by our Constitution, it has in recent years been hampered by insurance companies, i.e.; the practice of the plaintiff's own insurance company intervening in an action and filing a lien against any proceeds paid to their insured. In essence, causing an additional financial hurdle for a plaintiff to overcome at trial in terms of overall award. In a very real sense an injured party in exercise of their right to trial by jury may be the only party in a cause that would end up with zero compensation.

ADVERTISEMENT