Preview:

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. ATTORNEY FOR APPELLANT: ANN M. SUTTON Marion County Public Defender Indianapolis, Indiana ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE: STEPHEN R. CARTER Attorney General of Indiana Indianapolis, Indiana ARTURO RODRIGUEZ II Deputy Attorney General Indianapolis, Indiana

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA
DAVID ALLEN, Appellant-Defendant, vs. STATE OF INDIANA, Appellee-Plaintiff. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )

No. 49A02-0705-CR-412

APPEAL FROM THE MARION SUPERIOR COURT The Honorable Nancy Broyles, Commissioner Cause No. 49G05-0608-FC-160736

DECEMBER 5, 2007 MEMORANDUM DECISION - NOT FOR PUBLICATION BARTEAU, Senior Judge

STATEMENT OF THE CASE

Defendant-Appellant David Allen appeals his conviction by jury of theft as a Class C felony, his adjudication as an habitual offender, and his sentence thereon. We affirm. ISSUES Allen raises two issues for our review: 1. 2. Whether there is sufficient evidence to support his conviction; and Whether his sentence is appropriate.

FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY On August 25, 2006, Allen went to Region's National Bank in Indianapolis, approached the teller, lifted the front of his shirt and indicated that he had a gun under it, and told the teller that he needed money. He later admitted to the police that he had taken the money. He was convicted by jury of Class C felony theft and adjudicated to be a habitual offender. The trial court sentenced him to seven years for the theft conviction enhanced by six years for being a habitual offender, for a thirteen-year executed sentence. Allen appeals his conviction and sentence. DISCUSSION AND DECISION I. Sufficiency of the Evidence Our standard of review for sufficiency of the evidence is well settled. Cline v. State, 860 N.E.2d 647, 649 (Ind. Ct. App. 2007). We will not reweigh the evidence or judge the credibility of the witnesses. Id. We consider only the evidence and reasonable

2

inferences supporting the verdict.

Id.

Our task is to determine whether there is

substantial evidence of probative value from which a reasonable jury could find the defendant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. Id. Indiana Code Section 35-42-5-1

provides that a person who knowingly or intentionally takes property from another person by putting any person in fear commits robbery as a Class C felony. Allen argues that there is insufficient evidence to support his robbery conviction. Specifically, his sole contention is that there is insufficient evidence that he knowingly or intentionally placed the teller in fear as required by Ind. Code

Download David Allen v. State of Indiana.pdf

Indiana Law