MEMORANDUM DECISION Pursuant to Ind. Appellate Rule 65(D), this Memorandum Decision shall not be FILED regarded as precedent or cited before any Jul 21 2020, 8:56 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 Cara Schaefer Wieneke Curtis T. Hill, Jr. Wieneke Law Office, LLC Attorney General of Indiana Brooklyn, Indiana Jodi Kathryn Stein Deputy Attorney General Indianapolis, Indiana
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA
William Ray Grimes, July 21, 2020 Appellant-Defendant, Court of Appeals Case No. 20A-CR-131 v. Appeal from the Sullivan Superior Court State of Indiana, The Honorable Hugh R. Hunt, Appellee-Plaintiff. Judge Trial Court Cause No. 77D01-1809-F2-676
Najam, Judge.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 20A-CR-207 | July 21, 2020 Page 1 of 7 Statement of the Case [1] William Ray Grimes appeals his conviction by a jury for auto theft, as a Level 6
felony. Grimes presents one issue for our review, namely, whether the State
presented sufficient evidence to support his conviction. We affirm.
Facts and Procedural History [2] On September 12, 2018, Tonya Wolfe’s brother-in-law, Joe Baxley, asked
Wolfe to go to a yard sale near Sullivan, Indiana, to shop for furniture for his
used furniture business. Baxley told Wolfe to drive his black Chevrolet
Equinox. While she was at the yard sale, Wolfe received a message from
Nancy Hood, Grimes’s mother. Hood said that Grimes “was in Illinois” and
wanted to “come over” to Indiana. Tr. Vol. II at 203. Wolfe had known
Grimes for several years, and she considered him a good friend.
[3] After Wolfe picked up Grimes, they went to Wolfe’s house together. There,
Grimes drank gin and became “inebriated.” Tr. Vol. III at 23. He eventually
told Wolfe that he wanted to leave, and they left in Baxley’s Equinox with
Wolfe driving. However, en route to Hood’s home, Grimes got “agitated . . .
[and] he was yelling out in the car.” Tr. Vol. II at 204. Grimes then began to
dig through Wolfe’s purse and told her, “I thought you were better than this.”
Id.
[4] When they reached Riverton, Indiana, on the Wabash River, Grimes asked to
use Wolfe’s phone to call Hood to pick him up and transport him the rest of the
way. But Hood told Grimes that she could not pick him up, Grimes became
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 20A-CR-207 | July 21, 2020 Page 2 of 7 “really upset and agitated.” Id. Nonetheless, Wolfe offered to take him back to
Hood’s residence. Wolfe testified that, at that point, she “wanted to take him
back and get him out of the car . . . ‘cause he was starting to scare me.” Id. at
204.
[5] Instead, however, Grimes ordered Wolfe to “stop the car,” and he told her,
“I’m driving.” Id. at 205. Wolfe did not want Grimes to drive, but he told her,
“either get out or I’ll take you out.” Id. Wolfe acquiesced, and Grimes drove
into Illinois.
[6] They arrived at Hood’s residence soon thereafter. There, Grimes attacked
Wolfe, hitting her in her head. Grimes also stabbed Wolfe’s cell phone with a
knife, almost tore one of her fingers “completely off,” and threatened to cut
Wolfe’s throat. Id. at 208. Wolfe called out for help from Hood. Grimes then
grabbed Wolfe by the throat and started to pull her out of the vehicle, at which
point Wolfe lost consciousness.
[7] When Wolfe regained consciousness, she was in the vehicle and covered with
blood. Grimes “was driving” and told her that she was “squirting blood and
[she] need[ed] medical attention.” Id. He also told Wolfe that he was driving
her to a different house, and he told her to report the Equinox stolen. When
they arrived at the house, Wolfe recognized the vehicles parked there as
belonging to Grimes’s cousin. Wolfe got out of the vehicle, and Grimes drove
away. Wolfe then walked to a nearby house, where she called Baxley, who
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 20A-CR-207 | July 21, 2020 Page 3 of 7 picked her up. Wolfe eventually was treated at Regional Hospital in Terre
Haute, where she received surgery to repair her finger.
[8] While Wolfe was at the hospital, Baxley spoke with Sullivan County Chief
Deputy Jason Bobbitt and reported the Equinox stolen. OnStar was able to
locate the vehicle in Riverton. The vehicle was in a grassy area beside the
Wabash River. Officer Brandon Mullen found blood on the front passenger
seat, steering wheel, roof, and along the outside of the vehicle. He also found
Wolfe’s broken cell phone case in the car, but he did not find her cell phone.
Meredith Livingston from the Indiana State Police Laboratory identified the
blood located on the steering wheel as Wolfe’s.
[9] The State charged Grimes with auto theft, as a Level 6 felony. At his ensuing
jury trial, Grimes testified that Wolfe drove him all the way to Hood’s house in
Illinois and that Wolfe was lying to avoid a probation violation for having
crossed state lines. Wolfe testified that Grimes had seized the vehicle in
Indiana, drove her to Illinois, and attacked her. The jury found Grimes guilty
of auto theft, as a Level 6 felony. The trial court entered judgment of
conviction accordingly and sentenced him to 910 days incarceration. This
appeal ensued.
Discussion and Decision [10] Grimes contends that the State failed to present sufficient evidence to support
his conviction for auto theft. As our Supreme Court recently stated:
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 20A-CR-207 | July 21, 2020 Page 4 of 7 When an appeal raises “a sufficiency of evidence challenge, we do not reweigh the evidence or judge the credibility of the witnesses . . . .” We consider only the probative evidence and the reasonable inferences that support the verdict. “We will affirm ‘if the probative evidence and reasonable inferences drawn from the evidence could have allowed a reasonable trier of fact to find the defendant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.’”
Phipps v. State, 90 N.E.3d 1190, 1195 (Ind. 2018) (quoting Joslyn v. State, 942
N.E.2d 809, 811 (Ind. 2011)). To prove that Grimes committed auto theft, as a
Level 6 felony, the State was required to show that Grimes (1) knowingly or
intentionally (2) exerted unauthorized control over (3) Baxley’s Chevy Equinox
(4) with intent to deprive Baxley of any part of the vehicle’s value or use. Ind.
Code § 35-43-4-2 (2020).
[11] Grimes does not contest that the evidence presented at trial established each
element of auto theft, as a Level 6 felony. Instead, Grimes asserts that Wolfe
was the only witness against him regarding who drove the Chevy Equinox from
Indiana to Hood’s residence in Illinois, which goes to the second element of the
offense, and that “her testimony was inherently contradictory.” Appellant’s Br.
at 10. Specifically, Grimes argues:
Grimes and Hood both testified Wolfe did just as she told Grimes she would: she drove Grimes to his mother’s home in Illinois. Yet Wolfe had an obvious motive to claim Grimes forced her to cross the Illinois state line. Her testimony that she began to do just as Grimes asked—to drive him to his mother’s home in Illinois—but then suddenly Grimes told her not to because he would do it himself, was inherently contradictory and without credibility.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
MEMORANDUM DECISION Pursuant to Ind. Appellate Rule 65(D), this Memorandum Decision shall not be FILED regarded as precedent or cited before any Jul 21 2020, 8:56 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 Cara Schaefer Wieneke Curtis T. Hill, Jr. Wieneke Law Office, LLC Attorney General of Indiana Brooklyn, Indiana Jodi Kathryn Stein Deputy Attorney General Indianapolis, Indiana
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA
William Ray Grimes, July 21, 2020 Appellant-Defendant, Court of Appeals Case No. 20A-CR-131 v. Appeal from the Sullivan Superior Court State of Indiana, The Honorable Hugh R. Hunt, Appellee-Plaintiff. Judge Trial Court Cause No. 77D01-1809-F2-676
Najam, Judge.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 20A-CR-207 | July 21, 2020 Page 1 of 7 Statement of the Case [1] William Ray Grimes appeals his conviction by a jury for auto theft, as a Level 6
felony. Grimes presents one issue for our review, namely, whether the State
presented sufficient evidence to support his conviction. We affirm.
Facts and Procedural History [2] On September 12, 2018, Tonya Wolfe’s brother-in-law, Joe Baxley, asked
Wolfe to go to a yard sale near Sullivan, Indiana, to shop for furniture for his
used furniture business. Baxley told Wolfe to drive his black Chevrolet
Equinox. While she was at the yard sale, Wolfe received a message from
Nancy Hood, Grimes’s mother. Hood said that Grimes “was in Illinois” and
wanted to “come over” to Indiana. Tr. Vol. II at 203. Wolfe had known
Grimes for several years, and she considered him a good friend.
[3] After Wolfe picked up Grimes, they went to Wolfe’s house together. There,
Grimes drank gin and became “inebriated.” Tr. Vol. III at 23. He eventually
told Wolfe that he wanted to leave, and they left in Baxley’s Equinox with
Wolfe driving. However, en route to Hood’s home, Grimes got “agitated . . .
[and] he was yelling out in the car.” Tr. Vol. II at 204. Grimes then began to
dig through Wolfe’s purse and told her, “I thought you were better than this.”
Id.
[4] When they reached Riverton, Indiana, on the Wabash River, Grimes asked to
use Wolfe’s phone to call Hood to pick him up and transport him the rest of the
way. But Hood told Grimes that she could not pick him up, Grimes became
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 20A-CR-207 | July 21, 2020 Page 2 of 7 “really upset and agitated.” Id. Nonetheless, Wolfe offered to take him back to
Hood’s residence. Wolfe testified that, at that point, she “wanted to take him
back and get him out of the car . . . ‘cause he was starting to scare me.” Id. at
204.
[5] Instead, however, Grimes ordered Wolfe to “stop the car,” and he told her,
“I’m driving.” Id. at 205. Wolfe did not want Grimes to drive, but he told her,
“either get out or I’ll take you out.” Id. Wolfe acquiesced, and Grimes drove
into Illinois.
[6] They arrived at Hood’s residence soon thereafter. There, Grimes attacked
Wolfe, hitting her in her head. Grimes also stabbed Wolfe’s cell phone with a
knife, almost tore one of her fingers “completely off,” and threatened to cut
Wolfe’s throat. Id. at 208. Wolfe called out for help from Hood. Grimes then
grabbed Wolfe by the throat and started to pull her out of the vehicle, at which
point Wolfe lost consciousness.
[7] When Wolfe regained consciousness, she was in the vehicle and covered with
blood. Grimes “was driving” and told her that she was “squirting blood and
[she] need[ed] medical attention.” Id. He also told Wolfe that he was driving
her to a different house, and he told her to report the Equinox stolen. When
they arrived at the house, Wolfe recognized the vehicles parked there as
belonging to Grimes’s cousin. Wolfe got out of the vehicle, and Grimes drove
away. Wolfe then walked to a nearby house, where she called Baxley, who
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 20A-CR-207 | July 21, 2020 Page 3 of 7 picked her up. Wolfe eventually was treated at Regional Hospital in Terre
Haute, where she received surgery to repair her finger.
[8] While Wolfe was at the hospital, Baxley spoke with Sullivan County Chief
Deputy Jason Bobbitt and reported the Equinox stolen. OnStar was able to
locate the vehicle in Riverton. The vehicle was in a grassy area beside the
Wabash River. Officer Brandon Mullen found blood on the front passenger
seat, steering wheel, roof, and along the outside of the vehicle. He also found
Wolfe’s broken cell phone case in the car, but he did not find her cell phone.
Meredith Livingston from the Indiana State Police Laboratory identified the
blood located on the steering wheel as Wolfe’s.
[9] The State charged Grimes with auto theft, as a Level 6 felony. At his ensuing
jury trial, Grimes testified that Wolfe drove him all the way to Hood’s house in
Illinois and that Wolfe was lying to avoid a probation violation for having
crossed state lines. Wolfe testified that Grimes had seized the vehicle in
Indiana, drove her to Illinois, and attacked her. The jury found Grimes guilty
of auto theft, as a Level 6 felony. The trial court entered judgment of
conviction accordingly and sentenced him to 910 days incarceration. This
appeal ensued.
Discussion and Decision [10] Grimes contends that the State failed to present sufficient evidence to support
his conviction for auto theft. As our Supreme Court recently stated:
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 20A-CR-207 | July 21, 2020 Page 4 of 7 When an appeal raises “a sufficiency of evidence challenge, we do not reweigh the evidence or judge the credibility of the witnesses . . . .” We consider only the probative evidence and the reasonable inferences that support the verdict. “We will affirm ‘if the probative evidence and reasonable inferences drawn from the evidence could have allowed a reasonable trier of fact to find the defendant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.’”
Phipps v. State, 90 N.E.3d 1190, 1195 (Ind. 2018) (quoting Joslyn v. State, 942
N.E.2d 809, 811 (Ind. 2011)). To prove that Grimes committed auto theft, as a
Level 6 felony, the State was required to show that Grimes (1) knowingly or
intentionally (2) exerted unauthorized control over (3) Baxley’s Chevy Equinox
(4) with intent to deprive Baxley of any part of the vehicle’s value or use. Ind.
Code § 35-43-4-2 (2020).
[11] Grimes does not contest that the evidence presented at trial established each
element of auto theft, as a Level 6 felony. Instead, Grimes asserts that Wolfe
was the only witness against him regarding who drove the Chevy Equinox from
Indiana to Hood’s residence in Illinois, which goes to the second element of the
offense, and that “her testimony was inherently contradictory.” Appellant’s Br.
at 10. Specifically, Grimes argues:
Grimes and Hood both testified Wolfe did just as she told Grimes she would: she drove Grimes to his mother’s home in Illinois. Yet Wolfe had an obvious motive to claim Grimes forced her to cross the Illinois state line. Her testimony that she began to do just as Grimes asked—to drive him to his mother’s home in Illinois—but then suddenly Grimes told her not to because he would do it himself, was inherently contradictory and without credibility.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 20A-CR-207 | July 21, 2020 Page 5 of 7 Id. at 10-11. Grimes also asserts that “there was no circumstantial evidence to
support [Wolfe’s] testimony.” Id. at 11. In other words, Grimes contends that
the State failed to present sufficient evidence to support his conviction because
Wolfe’s testimony was incredibly dubious.
[12] As our Supreme Court recently stated:
Under our “incredible dubiosity” rule, we will invade the jury’s province for judging witness credibility only in exceptionally rare circumstances. The evidence supporting the conviction must have been offered by a sole witness; the witness’s testimony must have been coerced, equivocal, and wholly uncorroborated; it must have been “inherently improbable” or of dubious credibility; and there must have been no circumstantial evidence of the defendant’s guilt.
McCallister v. State, 91 N.E.3d 554, 559 (Ind. 2018). Our Supreme Court has
also stated that the rule “‘requires great ambiguity and inconsistency in the
evidence’” and “‘[t]he testimony must be so convoluted and/or contrary to
human experience that no reasonable person could believe it.’” Moore v. State,
27 N.E.3d 749, 756 (Ind. 2015) (quoting Edwards v. State, 753 N.E.2d 618, 622
(Ind. 2001)). “‘[I]t is for the trier of fact to resolve conflicts in the evidence and
to decide which witnesses to believe or disbelieve.’” Id. at 755-56 (quoting
Murray v. State, 761 N.E.2d 406, 409 (Ind. 2002)).
[13] Here, there were no contradictions in Wolfe’s testimony. Wolfe testified that
she had agreed to drive Grimes to Illinois despite the fact that doing so would
be a probation violation. Wolfe also testified that, while she had agreed to drive
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 20A-CR-207 | July 21, 2020 Page 6 of 7 Grimes to Illinois, Grimes nonetheless threatened her to let him drive or he
would “take [her] out.” Tr. Vol. II at 205. She then explained that Grimes
took control of the vehicle, drove to Hood’s home, and attacked her. That
testimony was not “‘so convoluted and/or contrary to human experience that
no reasonable person could believe it.’” Moore, 27 N.E.3d at 756 (quoting
Edwards, 753 N.E.2d at 622).
[14] Moreover, Grimes’s contention that there was no circumstantial evidence to
support Wolfe’s testimony is incorrect. Wolfe testified that, when they arrived
at Hood’s residence, Grimes attacked her, almost tore her finger off, and
rendered her unconscious inside the vehicle. Officer Mullen later found
Wolfe’s blood inside and outside the vehicle, and Wolfe later received
emergency medical treatment at Regional Hospital, which corroborated
Wolfe’s testimony.
[15] In sum, the incredible dubiosity rule does not apply here. Grimes relies on that
rule in an attempt to circumvent the basic rule that, in sufficiency challenges,
we cannot reweigh the evidence and assess the credibility of witnesses.
Accordingly, we reject his argument on appeal and affirm his conviction.
[16] Affirmed.
Bradford, C.J., and Mathias, J., concur.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 20A-CR-207 | July 21, 2020 Page 7 of 7