Victor S. Perez, Jr. v. State of Indiana (mem. dec.)

• Court: Indiana Court of Appeals
• Decided: December 14, 2016
• Docket: 02A05-1605-CR-1065
• 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 Dec 14 2016, 8:43 am court except for the purpose of establishing CLERK the defense of res judicata, collateral Indiana Supreme Court Court of Appeals estoppel, or the law of the case. and Tax Court

ATTORNEY FOR APPELLANT ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE Michelle F. Kraus Gregory F. Zoeller Fort Wayne, Indiana Attorney General of Indiana

Eric P. Babbs Deputy Attorney General Indianapolis, Indiana

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA

Victor S. Perez, Jr., December 14, 2016 Appellant-Defendant, Court of Appeals Case No. 02A05-1605-CR-1065 v. Appeal from the Allen Superior Court State of Indiana, The Honorable John F. Surbeck, Appellee-Plaintiff. Jr., Judge Trial Court Cause No. 02D04-1510-F5-284

Altice, Judge.

Case Summary

Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 02A05-1605-CR-1065| December 14, 2016 Page 1 of 4 [1] Following a jury trial, Victor S. Perez, Jr., was convicted of Level 5 felony

criminal confinement, Level 6 felony strangulation, and class A misdemeanor

battery. On appeal, Perez argues that the State presented insufficient evidence

to support his convictions.

[2] We affirm.

Facts & Procedural History

[3] On the night of October 3, 2015, Perez and his girlfriend, S.L., were listening to

music and drinking alcohol at Perez’s apartment. An argument ensued when

Perez became angry at S.L. for singing along to a song with lyrics about a

woman cheating on her boyfriend. S.L. told Perez that she was leaving, and

Perez hugged her and would not allow her to leave. S.L. then tried to call her

mother to ask her to pick her up, but Perez took S.L.’s cell phone and hid it.

S.L. found her phone when it started ringing, and she managed to call her

mother and scream for help before Perez took the phone from her again.

[4] S.L. tried to leave again, but Perez stood in front of the door, and S.L. slapped

him in the face. Perez then pushed S.L. down into a garbage can, choked her,

and spit in her face. When S.L. was finally able to escape from Perez’s grasp,

she grabbed his keys and ran outside. Perez chased her and dragged her back

inside by her hair. Perez then took the keys and locked the door to the stairway

leading to his apartment door. The door had a deadbolt that required a key

both to enter and to exit.

Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 02A05-1605-CR-1065| December 14, 2016 Page 2 of 4 [5] Once back inside the apartment, Perez locked himself inside a bedroom and

threatened to kill himself. S.L. believed that Perez had a gun because she

“could hear it cocking back.” Transcript at 44. S.L. then ran out of the

apartment and down the stairs, but she could not leave the building because the

exterior door was still locked and she did not have the key. Meanwhile, S.L.’s

mother had arrived, and she used a tire iron to try to break the glass in the door

to free S.L., but was unable to do so. When police arrived, S.L. and her mother

frantically explained that Perez had a gun and that S.L. was trapped inside.

The officers broke the glass surrounding the exterior door in order to pull S.L.

to safety.

[6] After S.L. escaped, Perez refused to come out of his apartment, and the ensuing

four-hour standoff ended only after the SWAT team used tear gas to force Perez

out. During a subsequent search of Perez’s apartment, police discovered two

handguns hidden in the ceiling tiles.

[7] As a result of these events, the State charged Perez with criminal confinement,

kidnapping, strangulation, and battery. A two-day jury trial commenced on

March 15, 2016, at the conclusion of which Perez was found guilty of criminal

confinement, strangulation, and battery, but acquitted of kidnapping. Perez

now appeals.

Discussion & Decision

[8] Perez challenges the sufficiency of the evidence supporting his convictions.

Our standard of review for sufficiency of the evidence claims is well settled.

Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 02A05-1605-CR-1065| December 14, 2016 Page 3 of 4 We consider only the probative evidence and reasonable inferences supporting

the conviction. Drane v. State, 867 N.E.2d 144, 146 (Ind. 2007). We do not

assess the credibility of witnesses or reweigh evidence, and we will affirm unless

no reasonable fact-finder could find the elements of the crime proven beyond a

reasonable doubt. Id. It is not necessary that the evidence overcome every

reasonable hypothesis of innocence; rather, the evidence will be found sufficient

if an inference may reasonably be drawn from it to support the conviction. Id.

at 147. “The uncorroborated testimony of one witness, even if it is the victim,

is sufficient to sustain a conviction.” Whitener v. State, 982 N.E.2d 439, 444

(Ind. Ct. App. 2013), trans. denied.

[9] On appeal, Perez has done nothing more than argue that S.L’s testimony

should not be believed and that we should instead credit other conflicting

testimony. We will not indulge this blatant request to reweigh the evidence and

judge the credibility of witnesses. S.L. testified to the foregoing facts, and this

testimony was sufficient standing alone to support Perez’s convictions.

Additionally, S.L’s testimony was corroborated by the testimony of her mother

and the responding officers, as well as photos introduced into evidence of S.L.’s

injuries and the handguns discovered during the search of the apartment.

Perez’s convictions were amply supported by the evidence.

[10] Judgment affirmed.

[11] Riley, J. and Crone, J., concur.

Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 02A05-1605-CR-1065| December 14, 2016 Page 4 of 4