Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 18A-CR-2173 | March 27, 2019 Page 1 of 7

MEMORANDUM DECISION

Pursuant to Ind. Appellate Rule 65(D), 

this Memorandum Decision shall not be 

regarded as 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.

ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLANT

Valerie K. Boots

Ellen M. O’Connor

Marion County Public Defender Agency 

– Appellate Division

Indianapolis, Indiana

ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE

Curtis T. Hill, Jr.

Attorney General of Indiana

Matthew F. Kite

Angela Sanchez

Deputy Attorneys General

Indianapolis, Indiana

IN THE

COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA

Shaquille Hollingsworth,

Appellant-Defendant,

v.

State of Indiana,

Appellee-Plaintiff.

March 27, 2019

Court of Appeals Case No.

18A-CR-2173

Appeal from the Marion Superior 

Court

The Honorable Jeffrey L. Marchal, 

Magistrate

Trial Court Cause No.

49G06-1805-F4-15382

Mathias, Judge.

[1] Following a bench trial in Marion Superior Court, Shaquille Hollingsworth 

(“Hollingsworth”) was convicted of Level 4 felony burglary, Level 6 felony 
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 18A-CR-2173 | March 27, 2019 Page 2 of 7

theft of a firearm, Class A misdemeanor carrying a handgun without a license, 

and Class A resisting law enforcement. Hollingsworth appeals and argues that 

the evidence is insufficient to support his convictions for burglary and theft. 

[2] We affirm.

Facts and Procedural History

[3] On the afternoon of May 9, 2018, Rex Stanley (“Stanley”) was watching 

television with his wife in his home in Indianapolis when he looked out of his 

window and saw two men get out of a white Dodge Durango and walk down 

the street. One of the men was wearing a gray hooded sweatshirt, and the other, 

later identified as Hollingsworth, was wearing a red shirt and carrying a black 

backpack. Stanley then sat down to watch television. A few minutes later, he 

and his wife heard dogs barking outside. Stanley looked out a window in the 

rear of his home and saw two men, who had the same appearance and clothing

as the ones who had gotten out of the Durango, kick in the door of a 

neighboring home owned by James Allen (“Allen”). Stanley telephoned the 

police and went outside to investigate. While outside, he saw the two men 

inside his neighbor’s home. Stanley went back inside his home and later saw 

the two men reenter the white Durango and leave. 

[4] Officer Eric Snowden (“Officer Snowden”) was on patrol when he received a 

dispatch regarding the suspected burglary and soon saw a white Durango, 

which matched the description of the one seen leaving the scene, parked at a 

nearby convenience store. Officer Snowden saw two men enter the vehicle, one 
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 18A-CR-2173 | March 27, 2019 Page 3 of 7

of whom was wearing a red shirt and had a black bookbag. After the two men 

got in the vehicle, they left the convenience store lot and drove away. Officer 

Snowden followed the Durango until backup could arrive, then pulled the 

vehicle over. 

[5] After the vehicle stopped, the two men Officer Snowden had just seen enter the 

vehicle opened the doors, got out, and ran away. Officer Snowden exited his 

patrol car, identified himself as a police officer, and ordered the men to stop to 

no avail. Officer Snowden chased the men on foot, but the two men split up as 

they fled. Officer Snowden followed the man with the red shirt and black 

bookbag, i.e., Hollingsworth. 

[6] Hollingsworth briefly evaded Officer Snowden, but a resident of a nearby home 

informed Officer Snowden that the man he had been chasing was hiding under

a car parked in a neighboring driveway. Officer Snowden then took 

Hollingsworth into custody, but Hollingsworth no longer had the bookbag. 

Officer Snowden advised Hollingsworth of his Miranda rights and asked 

Hollingsworth about the bag. Hollingsworth claimed that he had given the

bookbag to his brother. After Hollingsworth had been placed in a jail wagon, 

Officer Snowden searched for the bookbag. Another resident of the 

neighborhood told Officer Snowden that the bookbag was located on the roof of 

a carport1 attached to a neighboring house. Officer Snowden borrowed a ladder 

 

1 Officer Snowden described the carport as a “garage,” but the photograph taken shows a carport. 
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 18A-CR-2173 | March 27, 2019 Page 4 of 7

from a neighbor and retrieved the bookbag. When he opened the partially

opened bag, Officer Snowden saw the barrel of a handgun and ammunition 

magazines. Evidence technician Officer Larry Giordano (“Officer Giordano”) 

arrived and took custody of the bookbag. Inside the bag, Officer Giordano 

found, among other things, two Smith and Wesson handguns and five 

ammunition magazines. Subsequent testing revealed that Hollingsworth’s 

fingerprint was on one of the ammunition magazines. 

[7] When Allen, the owner of the burglarized home, returned to his house, he saw

that his back door was standing open, the lock was still extended, and the door 

frame was broken. Inside, the home had been ransacked, and two Smith and 

Wesson handguns and five ammunition magazines had been stolen. Allen 

identified the handguns and ammunition found in the bookbag as the ones 

missing from his home. 

[8] On May 14, 2018, the State charged Hollingsworth with Level 4 felony 

burglary, Level 6 felony theft of a firearm, Class A misdemeanor carrying a 

handgun without a license, and Class A resisting law enforcement. A bench 

trial was held on July 25, 2018, at the conclusion of which the court found 

Hollingsworth guilty as charged. At a sentencing hearing held on August 9, 

2018, the trial court declined to enter a judgment of conviction on the count of 

carrying a handgun without a license due to double jeopardy concerns. The trial 

court found the aggravators and mitigators to be in equipoise and imposed the 

advisory term of six years of incarceration on the burglary conviction, and 
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 18A-CR-2173 | March 27, 2019 Page 5 of 7

concurrent terms of one year on the theft conviction and 180 days on the 

resisting law enforcement conviction. Hollingsworth now appeals. 

Discussion and Decision

[9] Hollingsworth argues that the State failed to present evidence sufficient to 

support his convictions for burglary and theft. Our standard of review on claims 

of insufficient evidence is well settled: 

When reviewing a claim that the evidence is insufficient to 

support a conviction, we neither reweigh the evidence nor judge 

the credibility of the witnesses; instead, we respect the exclusive 

province of the trier of fact to weigh any conflicting evidence. We 

consider only the probative evidence supporting the [judgment] 

and any reasonable inferences which may be drawn from this 

evidence. 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. 

Harrison v. State, 32 N.E.3d 240, 247 (Ind. Ct. App. 2015), trans. denied (citing 

McHenry v. State, 820 N.E.2d 124, 126 (Ind. 2005)). 

[10] To convict Hollingsworth of Level 4 felony burglary, the State was required to 

prove that he broke and entered into Allen’s dwelling with the intent to commit 

a felony or theft therein. See Appellant’s App. p. 19; Ind. Code § 35-43-2-1(1). 

And to convict Hollingsworth of Level 6 felony theft of a firearm, the State was 

required to prove that he knowingly exerted unauthorized control over a 

firearm belonging to Allen with the intent to deprive Allen of any part of the use 
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 18A-CR-2173 | March 27, 2019 Page 6 of 7

or value of the firearm. See Appellant’s App. p. 19; Ind. Code § 35-43-4-

2(a)(1)(B). 

[11] Hollingsworth does not challenge that the State established that two men broke 

into Allen’s home and stole the firearms. Instead, he argues that the State 

presented insufficient evidence to establish that he was one of the two men who 

were seen committing the burglary. We disagree. 

[12] As detailed above, Allen’s neighbor, Stanley, saw two men get out of a white 

Durango, one of whom was wearing a red shirt and carrying a bookbag. He 

later saw these two men kick in his neighbor’s door. Stanley went outside and 

saw the men rummaging around Allen’s house, and later saw them reenter the 

Durango. Shortly thereafter, Officer Snowden saw two men enter a white 

Durango, one of whom matched the description of one of the burglars, i.e., a 

red shirt and a bookbag. When Officer Snowden pulled over the Durango, the 

man in the red shirt and black bookbag ran away. Officer Snowden soon found 

Hollingsworth, wearing a red shirt, hiding underneath a car. Hollingsworth 

claimed to have given the bag he had been carrying to his brother, but the bag 

was soon found on the roof of a nearby carport. The bag contained the 

handguns and magazines stolen from Allen’s home, and Hollingsworth’s 

fingerprint was found on one of the magazines. 

[13] From these facts and circumstances, the trial court could readily conclude that 

Hollingsworth was one of the two men who exited the Durango, kicked in the 

door to Allen’s home, stole the handguns and magazines, and fled from the 
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 18A-CR-2173 | March 27, 2019 Page 7 of 7

police. In other words, the State presented sufficient evidence to prove beyond a 

reasonable doubt that Hollingsworth broke and entered into Allen’s home with 

the intent to commit a felony or theft therein and that he knowingly exerted 

unauthorized control over Allen’s firearm with the intent to deprive him of any 

part of the use or value thereof. 

Conclusion

[14] Hollingsworth’s argument that he was not involved in the burglary and that he 

was just in the Durango as a passenger is merely a request that we consider 

facts not favorable to the trial court’s verdict, reweigh the evidence, and come 

to a conclusion other than that reached by the trial court. But this is not within 

our prerogative as an appellate court. We therefore affirm the judgment of the 

trial court. 

[15] Affirmed. 

Vaidik, C.J., and Crone, J., concur.