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. ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLANT: ANN M. SUTTON Marion County Public Defender Indianapolis, Indiana LILABERDIA BATTIES Indianapolis, Indiana ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE: STEPHEN R. CARTER Attorney General of Indiana Indianapolis, Indiana GEORGE P. SHERMAN Deputy Attorney General Indianapolis, Indiana

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

No. 49A02-0701-CR-13

APPEAL FROM THE MARION SUPERIOR COURT The Honorable Louis Rosenberg, Magistrate Cause No. 49F09-0605-FD-090729

AUGUST 16, 2007 MEMORANDUM DECISION - NOT FOR PUBLICATION ROBERTSON, Senior Judge

STATEMENT OF THE CASE Defendant-Appellant Joann Sheridan is appealing her conviction at a bench trial of the Class D felony of residential entry and the Class B misdemeanor of battery. We affirm. ISSUE Sheridan states the issue as: "Whether the evidence was sufficient to sustain Jo Ann Sheridan's conviction for Residential Entry as a class D felony and Battery as a class B misdemeanor." FACTS A review of the facts, which support the conviction show that Steve Sheridan was the estranged husband of Joann Sheridan and the current boyfriend of Rosemary Brone. Steve Sheridan had been living in the Brone residence on North Whitfield, Indianapolis, for about eight months. D.A was the twelve-year-old son of Rosemary Brone. D.A. was sitting in the living room speaking to Steve Sheridan when Joann Sheridan, without permission, broke the lock on the front screen door with her fist and ran into the house. D.A. stood up and Joann Sheridan pushed him into a coffee table, causing him pain. DISCUSSION AND DECISION In reviewing a sufficiency of the evidence claim, we neither reweigh the evidence nor assess the credibility of the witnesses. Love v. State, 761 N.E.2d 806, 810 (Ind. Ct. App. 2002). We must respect the trier of fact's exclusive province to weigh conflicting evidence. McHenry v. State, 820 N.E.2d 124, 126 (Ind. 2005). We look to the evidence 2

most favorable to the judgment and reasonable inferences drawn therefrom. Id. We will affirm the conviction if there is probative evidence from which a reasonable trier of fact could have found the defendant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. Id. A reasonable inference from the evidence supporting the judgment is enough for us to find the evidence to be sufficient. Id. The trier of fact is entitled to determine which version of the incident to credit. Reyburn v. State, 737 N.E.2d 1169, 1171 (Ind. Ct. App. 2000). Ind. Code

Download Joann Sheridan v. State of Indiana.pdf

Indiana Law