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.

ATTORNEY FOR APPELLANT

Jeffrey E. Stratman

Aurora, Indiana

ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE

Gregory F. Zoeller

Attorney General of Indiana

Michael Gene Worden

Deputy Attorney General

Indianapolis, Indiana

IN THE

COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA

Patrick C. Garvey,

Appellant-Defendant,

v.

State of Indiana,

Appellee-Plaintiff

September 30, 2015

Court of Appeals Case No.

15A04-1503-CR-93

Appeal from the Dearborn Circuit 

Court

The Honorable James D. 

Humphrey, Judge

Trial Court Cause No.

15C01-1210-FB-56

Crone, Judge.

Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 15A04-1503-CR-93 | September 30, 2015 Page 1 of 5
Case Summary

[1] Patrick C. Garvey challenges the sufficiency of the evidence supporting his class 

B felony burglary conviction. Specifically, he asserts that the State failed to 

establish that he intended to commit theft inside the victim’s dwelling and asks 

that we reverse his burglary conviction and order modification to class D felony 

residential entry. Finding the evidence sufficient to support the jury’s 

determination that he intended to commit the felony of theft inside the 

dwelling, we affirm his conviction.

Facts and Procedural History

[2] On October 8, 2012, Daniel Blackaby and his brother Mark Blackaby pulled 

into their driveway and noticed a strange vehicle parked in front of their uncle’s 

driveway nearby. They knew that their uncle was in Kentucky for the day, so 

they drove over to investigate. They pulled in directly behind the suspicious 

vehicle, and Daniel walked behind the house to the garage and observed that 

his uncle’s truck was not there. When he turned to face the house, he noticed 

that the glass in the back door had been shattered. He saw a tall man, later 

identified as Garvey, walking quickly toward the driveway. The brothers 

attempted to prevent Garvey from leaving, but he got in his vehicle and sped 

around the house and away from the property.

[3] The brothers noted Garvey’s license plate number and called the police. 

Investigators found large rocks and shattered glass on the floor by the broken 

back door. They discovered the bedroom dresser drawers in disarray, with 

Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 15A04-1503-CR-93 | September 30, 2015 Page 2 of 5
clothing items on the floor and protruding from half-opened drawers. They also

found the bed sheets rumpled and thrown back. They discovered blood on an

item inside one of the drawers and on a tax document sticking out of another 

drawer. The victim later determined that no property had been taken. 

[4] Each of the brothers separately identified Garvey from a photographic array, 

and DNA testing showed that the blood found at the crime scene was Garvey’s. 

The victim did not know Garvey and did not give him permission to enter his 

home. 

[5] The State charged Garvey with class B felony burglary, and a jury found him 

guilty as charged. He now appeals. Additional facts will be provided as 

necessary.

Discussion and Decision

[6] Garvey maintains that the evidence is insufficient to support his conviction. 

When reviewing a challenge to the sufficiency of evidence, we neither reweigh 

evidence nor judge witness credibility. Drane v. State, 867 N.E.2d 144, 146 (Ind. 

2007). Rather, we consider only the evidence and reasonable inferences most 

favorable to the verdict and will affirm the conviction “unless no reasonable 

fact-finder could find the elements of the crime proven beyond a reasonable 

doubt.” Id. It is therefore not necessary that the evidence “overcome every 

reasonable hypothesis of innocence.” Id. (citation omitted). 

[7] Pursuant to Indiana Code Section 35-43-2-1(1)(B)(i) (1999), the State alleged 

that Garvey committed class B felony burglary by breaking and entering the 

Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 15A04-1503-CR-93 | September 30, 2015 Page 3 of 5
victim’s dwelling with intent to commit the felony of theft in it. Garvey admits 

that he broke and entered the victim’s home but submits that the evidence is 

insufficient to establish that he intended to commit theft once inside. 

[8] In the factually similar case of Baker v. State, the defendant challenged the 

sufficiency of evidence to establish his intent to commit the felony of theft in 

conjunction with his breaking and entering a church. 968 N.E.2d 227, 228 

(Ind. 2012). In affirming Baker’s burglary conviction, our supreme court noted 

that although it appeared that nothing had actually been removed from the 

church, his bloodstains on the outside of cupboards and drawers left ajar 

indicated that he had been present in the kitchen and had opened several 

drawers and cupboards. Id. Concerning the importance of circumstantial 

evidence in establishing reasonable inferences of felonious intent, the Baker

court reasoned,

Burglars rarely announce their intentions at the moment of entry, 

and indeed many times there is no one around to hear them even 

if they were to do so. Hence, a burglar’s intent to commit a 

specific felony at the time of the breaking and entering may be 

inferred from the circumstances .... Evidence of intent need not 

be insurmountable, but there must be a specific fact that provides 

a solid basis to support a reasonable inference that the defendant 

had the specific intent to commit a felony. The evidentiary 

inference pointing to the defendant’s intent must be separate from 

the inference of the defendant’s breaking and entering .... In other 

words, the evidence must support each inference—felonious 

intent and breaking and entering—independently, and neither 

inference should rely on the other for support.

Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 15A04-1503-CR-93 | September 30, 2015 Page 4 of 5
968 N.E.2d at 229-30 (citations and internal quotation marks omitted). The

Baker court concluded that the defendant’s “act of opening the drawers and 

cabinets alone was enough to support an inference of intent to commit theft. 

Evidence of rummaging would simply bolster the already reasonable inference 

of intent.” Id. at 231. 

[9] Here, the photographic exhibits show open dresser drawers with items spilling 

out and items on the floor. They show Garvey’s blood on at least one item 

inside a drawer and on a tax document protruding from another drawer. They 

also show bed sheets rumpled and thrown back. This evidence indicates that 

Garvey not only opened up the drawers but also rifled through them as well as 

through the bedding. Based on the foregoing, we conclude that the evidence is 

sufficient to support a reasonable inference that Garvey, having broken and 

entered the victim’s dwelling by shattering a glass door, ransacked the bedroom 

searching for items to steal. The fact that he left emptyhanded does not vitiate 

his felonious intent. Consequently, we affirm.

[10] Affirmed. 

May, J., and Bradford, J., concur.

Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 15A04-1503-CR-93 | September 30, 2015 Page 5 of 5