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

• Court: Indiana Court of Appeals
• Decided: July 16, 2019
• Docket: 18A-CR-2819
• 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 Jul 16 2019, 10:21 am

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

ATTORNEY FOR APPELLANT ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE Andrew Bernlohr Curtis T. Hill, Jr. Indianapolis, Indiana Attorney General George P. Sherman Supervising Deputy Attorney General Indianapolis, Indiana

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA

Michael Hicks, July 16, 2019 Appellant-Defendant, Court of Appeals Case No. 18A-CR-2819 v. Appeal from the Marion Superior Court State of Indiana, The Honorable Appellee-Plaintiff David Hooper, Magistrate The Honorable Amy M. Jones, Judge Trial Court Cause No. 49G08-1805-CM-16082

Vaidik, Chief Judge.

Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 18A-CR-2819 | July 16, 2019 Page 1 of 2 [1] Michael Hicks contends that the evidence is insufficient to support his

conviction of Class A misdemeanor criminal trespass for knowingly entering

Meadowlark Apartments in May 2018 after having been denied entry. At a

bench trial, the State presented evidence that Hicks signed an “Official Ban/No

Trespass Notice” in April 2018, which stated that Hicks was banned from

Meadowlark Apartments “for life” and would be subject to arrest for criminal

trespass if he returned. Ex. 1. At trial, Hicks admitted that he signed the

trespass notice but claimed that after signing it, he met with a manager of the

apartments and was left “under the impression” that he was not actually

banned from the property. Tr. p. 31. The judge, however, discredited Hicks’

testimony and found him guilty of criminal trespass. On appeal, Hicks repeats

his claim that he did not think he was banned from Meadowlark Apartments

because of the meeting he had with the manager. This argument is nothing

more than an invitation to judge the credibility of the witness, which we decline

to do. See Leonard v. State, 80 N.E.3d 878, 882 (Ind. 2017). We therefore

affirm Hicks’ conviction.

[2] Affirmed.

Kirsch, J., and Altice, J., concur.

Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 18A-CR-2819 | July 16, 2019 Page 2 of 2