Gary Glaze v. State of Indiana (mem. dec.)

• Court: Indiana Court of Appeals
• Decided: November 20, 2018
• Docket: 18A-CR-1100
• Status: Published

Opinion

MEMORANDUM DECISION Pursuant to Ind. Appellate Rule 65(D), FILED this Memorandum Decision shall not be Nov 20 2018, 9:46 am

regarded as precedent or cited before any CLERK Indiana Supreme Court court except for the purpose of establishing Court of Appeals and Tax Court the defense of res judicata, collateral estoppel, or the law of the case.

ATTORNEY FOR APPELLANT ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE Mark Small Curtis T. Hill, Jr. Indianapolis, Indiana Attorney General of Indiana Taylor C. Byrley Angela N. Sanchez J.T. Whitehead Deputy Attorneys General Indianapolis, Indiana

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA

Gary Glaze, November 20, 2018 Appellant-Defendant, Court of Appeals Case No. 18A-CR-1100 v. Appeal from the Montgomery Superior Court State of Indiana, The Honorable Heather Barajas, Appellee-Plaintiff Judge Trial Court Cause No. 54D01-1702-F5-339

Baker, Judge.

Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 18A-CR-1100 | November 20, 2018 Page 1 of 4 [1] Gary Glaze appeals his conviction for Level 6 Felony Battery Resulting in

Moderate Bodily Injury,1 arguing that the evidence was insufficient to support

his conviction. Finding that the evidence was sufficient, we affirm.

[2] Glaze is an inmate in the Montgomery County Jail who, at the time of the

incident, was housed in the same pod as Nicholas Summers. Summers was

eighteen years old and suffered from autism and a learning disability. On

January 25, 2017, Glaze got angry when he learned that Summers had Kool-

Aid. Glaze threw Summers’s mattress and told him to leave; Summers said no

and put his mattress back on his bed. When Summers turned around, Glaze

started to beat him, hitting his right eye multiple times with a closed fist. Glaze

told Summers that if Summers reported the incident, Glaze would kill him.

[3] Deputy Christian Brown received a report that a fight had occurred. When he

saw Summers, Summers was sobbing; his right eye was bleeding and swollen

shut, and there was a “pretty good gash” on his right eyelid. Tr. Vol. II p. 46.

Summers’s injuries included lacerations and fractured bones.

[4] On February 7, 2017, Glaze was charged with Level 5 felony battery resulting

in serious bodily injury and Level 6 felony battery resulting in moderate bodily

injury. On August 8, 2017, Glaze entered into a plea agreement; on November

1, 2017, the trial court rejected the plea agreement. A jury trial then took place

on April 3, 2018, after which the jury found Glaze guilty of Level 6 felony

1 Ind. Code § 35-42-2-1(e)(1).

Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 18A-CR-1100 | November 20, 2018 Page 2 of 4 battery resulting in moderate bodily injury but not guilty of Level 5 felony

battery resulting in serious bodily injury. Glaze admitted to being an habitual

offender. During a May 1, 2018, sentencing hearing, the trial court sentenced

Glaze to two years for his battery conviction and enhanced the sentence by four

years for his status as an habitual offender, for an aggregate term of six years.

Glaze now appeals.

[5] Glaze’s sole argument on appeal is that the evidence is insufficient to support

his conviction. Specifically, he contends that Summers’s uncorroborated

testimony was the only evidence that supported his conviction, thereby leaving

open to reasonable doubt the identity of the assailant. When reviewing the

sufficiency of the evidence to support a conviction, we must consider only the

probative evidence and reasonable inferences supporting the conviction and will

neither assess witness credibility nor reweigh the evidence. Drane v. State, 867

N.E.2d 144, 146 (Ind. 2007). We will affirm unless no reasonable factfinder

could find the elements of the crime proved beyond a reasonable doubt. Id.

The uncorroborated testimony of one witness may be sufficient by itself to

sustain a conviction on appeal. Toney v. State, 715 N.E.2d 367, 369 (Ind. 1999).

[6] To convict Glaze of Level 6 felony battery resulting in moderate bodily injury,

the State was required to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Glaze

knowingly or intentionally touched Summers in a rude, insolent, or angry

manner that resulted in moderate bodily injury to Summers. I.C. § 35-42-2-

1(e)(1).

Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 18A-CR-1100 | November 20, 2018 Page 3 of 4 [7] Summers testified that Glaze beat him up and caused his injuries. Specifically,

he testified that Glaze was angry and shouted at him when Glaze discovered

that Summers had Kool-Aid, that Glaze threw Summers’s mattress around, and

that Glaze called him names and told him to leave the cell. Summers stated

that Glaze then hit his right eye multiple times with a closed fist. He positively

identified Glaze as his assailant in a written statement shortly after he was

discharged from the hospital. Summers’s testimony alone was sufficient to

satisfy the elements of the charge that the State was required to prove and to

establish the identity of the assailant. Glaze’s attempt to cast doubt on the

identity of Summers’s assailant is an attempt to reweigh the evidence and assess

the credibility of the witnesses, which we may not do. The evidence was

sufficient to support the conviction.

[8] The judgment of the trial court is affirmed.

May, J., and Robb, J., concur.

Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 18A-CR-1100 | November 20, 2018 Page 4 of 4