Justin Holman v. State of Indiana (mem. dec.)

• Court: Indiana Court of Appeals
• Decided: June 23, 2017
• Docket: 49A04-1701-CR-84
• Status: Published

Opinion

MEMORANDUM DECISION Pursuant to Ind. Appellate Rule 65(D), this Memorandum Decision shall not be FILED regarded as precedent or cited before any Jun 23 2017, 8:44 am

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

ATTORNEY FOR APPELLANT ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE Curtis T. Hill, Jr. Ellen M. O’Connor Attorney General of Indiana Marion County Public Defender Agency Indianapolis, Indiana Katherine Cooper Deputy Attorney General Indianapolis, Indiana

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA

Justin Holman, June 23, 2017 Appellant-Defendant, Court of Appeals Case No. 49A04-1701-CR-84 v. Appeal from the Marion Superior Court State of Indiana, The Honorable Christina Appellee-Plaintiff Klineman, Judge Trial Court Cause No. 49G17-1611-CM-44831

Brown, Judge.

Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 49A04-1701-CR-84 | June 23, 2017 Page 1 of 8 [1] Justin Holman appeals his conviction for domestic battery and battery resulting

in bodily injury as class A misdemeanors. Holman raises one issue which we

revise and restate as whether the evidence is sufficient to sustain his

convictions. We affirm.

Facts and Procedural History

[2] On November 17, 2016, Holman lived with Brandi James in a duplex unit she

leased in Indianapolis. Holman was on house arrest and GPS monitoring.

When James returned home that day, the door was locked and, because she

had left her keys inside, she went to the next door neighbor. Through a

window, James observed that Holman and another woman were interacting

with each other. James knocked on the door and when the door opened began

yelling at Holman. James told Holman that she needed him to let her in the

house because she had left her keys inside, and he let her in the house. James

then walked to a friend’s house which was about five houses down, stayed there

about ten or fifteen minutes, and then walked back home. As she returned, she

saw Holman and the other woman kissing in front of the neighbor’s house.

James and Holman began to argue, Holman entered the house and sat on the

couch, and James could tell by Holman’s eyes and odor that he was

intoxicated. Holman grabbed the food James had bought, she said not to eat

her food and tried to take it, and he flipped the food and it went everywhere in

the room. James told Holman that he needed to leave, suggested that the other

woman help him move his stuff to her house, placed his clothes and shoes on

the grass outside, and called the police. The police responded to the scene and

Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 49A04-1701-CR-84 | June 23, 2017 Page 2 of 8 separated Holman and James, and at some point James went to the next street

to call her mother. James had Holman’s phone with her, an officer told her to

give the phone back to Holman, and she took the battery out and gave the

phone back. The police told Holman to call his house arrest officer the next

morning to have his address moved, told him they did not want to have another

call, and then left.

[3] After the officers left, Holman took his clothes back inside. He came outside

and argued with James near a basketball court across the street from the duplex.

Holman placed his arm around James’s neck, choked her, and pulled her to the

ground. He pulled James’s shirt down, obtained her cell phone, removed the

battery from the phone, and placed it in his phone. Holman walked into the

house, James followed him and threw his things back outside, he began to

throw her things outside, and she tried to prevent him from doing so. When

Holman “went out the last time, [James] slammed the door and tried to lock it

while he tried to come in,” and Holman “bust[ed] through [the] door.”

Transcript Volume 2 at 23. Holman grabbed James around her neck with his

arm and choked her, making it difficult for her to breathe. Holman called

James a “b-” and said “I’m not tryin’ . . . to hurt you,” and she replied “[y]ou

are hurting me.” Id. at 24. James ran down the street and knocked on the door

of another neighbor, Frederick Foster. Foster opened the door and observed

that James was crying and out of breath, and James said that “somebody was

after her.” Id. at 6. The police arrived and photographed James’s injuries.

Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 49A04-1701-CR-84 | June 23, 2017 Page 3 of 8 [4] On November 18, 2016, the State charged Holman with: Count I, domestic

battery as a class A misdemeanor; and Count II, battery resulting in bodily

injury as a class A misdemeanor. The court held a bench trial at which it heard

the testimony of James, Holman, and Foster. The court also admitted into

evidence photographs of James and GPS records from Marion County

Community Corrections showing Holman’s locations between 9:00 p.m. and

11:59 p.m. on November 17, 2016. Foster testified that he heard a knock on his

door and opened it to see James “shaken up, cryin’ . . . out of breath.” Id. at 7.

He testified that James was looking out the window and said “[t]here he go”

and that “[h]e was actually walking past, like he was looking for her . . . .” Id.

James also testified that, when she was at Foster’s house, she saw Holman

“[w]alking down the sidewalk towards where I was coming down from our

street.” Id. at 33. James further indicated that there was a prior incident

between her and Holman, that she had made a statement to the police regarding

that incident, and then she later recanted under oath. When asked why she

recanted, James answered “[b]ecause [Holman] had asked me to and I was still

in love with him. And so, and, I didn’t want to see him locked up.” Id. at 42.

Holman testified that at the time of the altercation he was on house arrest, that

it was “close to 9:30 p.m. or 10:00 p.m.,” that he could not “even get ahold of

the house arrest dude,” and that he said “[i]n the morning I can call him. And

then I can get my address changed and we can be done.” Id. at 46. When

asked “so your GPS allows you to go to the neighbor’s house and it doesn’t go

off,” Holman testified “[w]ell yeah because it’s all like within the same – for

one (1), it’s a double, and cutting the grass means I’m like halfway in front of Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 49A04-1701-CR-84 | June 23, 2017 Page 4 of 8 their house anyway.” Id. at 56. Holman’s defense counsel argued that James

testified Holman was around Foster’s house “but his GPS coordinates clearly

show that he was at his house all night,” “[t]here’s one dot that’s off from his

house, uh, one [sic] the East side of the street,” and “I believe Ms. James

testified that that’s when they were arguing on the basketball court across the

street, but he was there at the house all night long.” Id. at 60. The court stated

that it found James’s account to be credible and that the State met its burden

beyond a reasonable doubt. It found Holman guilty as to Counts I and II and

sentenced him to 365 days suspended to probation on each count to be served

concurrently.

Discussion

[5] The issue is whether the evidence is sufficient to sustain Holman’s

convictions. When reviewing the sufficiency of the evidence to support a

conviction, we must consider only the probative evidence and reasonable

inferences supporting the verdict. Drane v. State, 867 N.E.2d 144, 146 (Ind.

2007). We do not assess witness credibility or reweigh the evidence. Id. We

consider conflicting evidence most favorably to the trial court’s ruling. Id. We

affirm the conviction unless “no reasonable fact-finder could find the elements

of the crime proven beyond a reasonable doubt.” Id. (quoting Jenkins v. State,

726 N.E.2d 268, 270 (Ind. 2000)). It is not necessary that the evidence

overcome every reasonable hypothesis of innocence. Id. at 147. The evidence

is sufficient if an inference may reasonably be drawn from it to support the

verdict. Id. Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 49A04-1701-CR-84 | June 23, 2017 Page 5 of 8 [6] Ind. Code § 35-42-2-1.3 provides that “a person who knowingly or intentionally

. . . touches a family or household member in a rude, insolent, or angry manner

. . . commits domestic battery, a Class A misdemeanor.” The State alleged

under Count I that Holman “did knowingly touch Brandi James, a family or

household member, in a rude, insolent or angry manner by striking and/or

grabbing Brandi James.” Appellant’s Appendix Volume II at 16. Ind. Code §

35-42-2-1 provides that “a person who knowingly or intentionally: . . . touches

another person in a rude, insolent, or angry manner . . . commits battery, a

Class B misdemeanor,” and that the offense is a class A misdemeanor if it

results in bodily injury to any other person. The State alleged under Count II

that Holman “did knowingly touch Brandi James in a rude, insolent, or angry

manner by striking and/or grabbing Brandi James resulting in bodily injury,

that is: pain and/or abrasions.” Appellant’s Appendix Volume II at 16. “A

person engages in conduct ‘knowingly’ if, when he engages in the conduct, he is

aware of a high probability that he is doing so.” Ind. Code § 35-41-2-2(b).

[7] Holman contends that the testimony of James was not credible. He argues that

James recanted a previous accusation of battery against him under oath, that at

that time she did not want him to be locked up, and that this time he was

breaking her financially and kissing another woman. He further asserts that,

while James claimed he followed her towards Foster’s house, Foster did not

identify him at trial and her claim is belied by GPS tracking. The State notes

that James testified that Holman grabbed her by the neck with his arm and

choked her, causing pain, that the entirety of Holman’s argument is a request to

Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 49A04-1701-CR-84 | June 23, 2017 Page 6 of 8 reweigh the evidence and reassess James’s credibility, and that the trier of fact

found James to be a credible witness.

[8] The record reveals that Holman and James engaged in an extended verbal

argument after James observed Holman interacting with and later kissing

another woman. James testified that Holman confronted her outside near the

basketball court across the street from the duplex she leased, placed his arm

around her neck, choked her, and pulled her to the ground. She also testified

that subsequently, when she was inside the duplex and attempted to lock the

door, Holman pushed through it, grabbed her around the neck, and choked her.

James and the other witnesses were thoroughly cross-examined, and the court

noted that it found James’s account to be credible. While the GPS records map

admitted into evidence does not show location markers for Holman as far south

as the location of Foster’s house, the map shows a location marker across the

street from the duplex leased by James and at numerous locations on the

duplex’s property. Further, the trial court was in a position to assess the

credibility of the witnesses and their testimony and to consider the impact of the

testimony regarding the observations of Holman near Foster’s house and the

fact that James had previously alleged and later under oath recanted similar

accusations against Holman.

[9] Based upon the record, we conclude that evidence of probative value was

presented from which the court as the trier of fact could find beyond a

reasonable doubt that Holman committed the offenses of domestic battery and

battery resulting in bodily injury as class A misdemeanors.

Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 49A04-1701-CR-84 | June 23, 2017 Page 7 of 8 Conclusion

[10] For the foregoing reasons, we affirm Holman’s convictions.

[11] Affirmed.

May, J., and Pyle, J., concur.

Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 49A04-1701-CR-84 | June 23, 2017 Page 8 of 8