Michael Daugherty v. State of Indiana (mem. dec.)

• Court: Indiana Court of Appeals
• Decided: July 23, 2015
• Docket: 49A04-1501-CR-19
• Status: Published

Opinion

MEMORANDUM DECISION Pursuant to Ind. Appellate Rule 65(D), this Memorandum Decision shall not be regarded as Jul 23 2015, 8:19 am 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 ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE Barbara J. Simmons Gregory F. Zoeller Oldenburg, Indiana Attorney General of Indiana

Eric P. Babbs Deputy Attorney General Indianapolis, Indiana

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA

Michael Daugherty, July 23, 2015

Appellant-Defendant, Court of Appeals Case No. 49A04-1501-CR-19 v. Appeal from the Marion Superior Court State of Indiana, The Honorable Amy M. Jones, Appellee-Plaintiff. Judge

Cause No. 49F08-1405-CM-25596

Najam, Judge.

Statement of the Case [1] Michael Daugherty appeals his conviction for criminal mischief, as a Class B

misdemeanor, following a bench trial. Daugherty presents a single issue for our

Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 49A04-1501-CR-19| July 23, 2015 Page 1 of 4 review, namely, whether the State presented sufficient evidence to support his

conviction. We affirm.

Facts and Procedural History [2] Daugherty and Larae Kesler’s granddaughter 1 have a child together (“Child”),

but Kesler’s granddaughter is married to someone else (“Stepfather”).

Daugherty had filed a “complaint” against Stepfather with the Indiana

Department of Child Services (“DCS”) in an effort to prevent Stepfather from

having any contact with Child. Tr. at 5. On May 10, 2014, Daugherty

“brought the police” and someone from the DCS to Kesler’s Indianapolis

residence looking for Stepfather and Child, but Kesler stated that they did not

live there. Later that day, Kesler found Daugherty “standing at [her] bedroom

window ripping [the] screen and . . . frame out of [the] window.” Id. at 6.

Kesler called the police, but Daugherty had left the premises by the time the

police arrived.

[3] The State charged Daugherty with criminal mischief, as a Class B

misdemeanor. The trial court found him guilty as charged following a bench

trial, and the court sentenced him to 180 days with 176 days suspended. This

appeal ensued.

1 We cannot find any reference to the granddaughter’s name in the record on appeal.

Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 49A04-1501-CR-19| July 23, 2015 Page 2 of 4 Discussion and Decision [4] Daugherty contends that the State presented insufficient evidence to support his

conviction. Our standard of review for sufficiency of the evidence claims is

well-settled. Tobar v. State, 740 N.E.2d 109, 111 (Ind. 2000).

In reviewing the sufficiency of the evidence, we examine only the probative evidence and reasonable inferences that support the verdict. We do not assess witness credibility, nor do we reweigh the evidence to determine if it was sufficient to support a conviction. Under our appellate system, those roles are reserved for the finder of fact. Instead, we consider only the evidence most favorable to the trial court ruling and affirm the conviction unless no reasonable fact-finder could find the elements of the crime proven beyond a reasonable doubt.

Pillow v. State, 986 N.E.2d 343, 344 (Ind. Ct. App. 2013) (citations omitted)

(internal quotation marks omitted).

[5] To prove criminal mischief, as a Class B misdemeanor, the State was required

to prove that Daugherty recklessly, knowingly, or intentionally damaged or

defaced the bedroom window screen in Kesler’s home when he “ripp[ed] the

screen from the window.” Appellant’s App. at 13; Ind. Code § 35-43-1-2(a)(1).

At trial, Kesler testified that she saw Daugherty “ripping my screen and my

frame out of my window.” Tr. at 6.

[6] Daugherty’s sole contention on appeal is that, because Kesler and Daugherty

were involved in a family dispute, Kesler was “bias[ed]” against him and had a

“motive” to “punish [him] in retaliation for his filing a DCS complaint against

Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 49A04-1501-CR-19| July 23, 2015 Page 3 of 4 [Stepfather].” Appellant’s Br. at 6. But that contention is a request that we

reassess witness credibility, which we cannot do. The State presented sufficient

evidence to support Daugherty’s conviction.

[7] Affirmed.

Kirsch, J., and Barnes, J., concur.

Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 49A04-1501-CR-19| July 23, 2015 Page 4 of 4