Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 49A02-1404-CR-264 | January 26, 2015 Page 1 of 6

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

Victoria L. Bailey

Indianapolis, Indiana

ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE

Gregory F. Zoeller

Attorney General of Indiana

William Hackl Brainard

Monika Prekopa Talbot

Deputy Attorney General

Indianapolis, Indiana

I N T H E

COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA

Ronnie Lewis,

Appellant-Defendant,

v.

State of Indiana,

Appellee-Plaintiff

January 26, 2015

Court of Appeals Cause No.

49A02-1404-CR-264

Appeal from the Marion Superior 

Court.

The Honorable Mark D. Stoner.

Cause No. 49G06-1301-FA-3115

Riley, Judge.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 49A02-1404-CR-264 | January 26, 2015 Page 2 of 6

STATEMENT OF THE CASE

[1] Appellant-Defendant, Ronnie Lewis (Lewis), appeals his conviction for 

attempted murder, a Class A felony, Ind. Code §§ 35-42-1-1; -41-5-1(2013).

[2] We affirm.

ISSUE

[3] Lewis raises one issues on appeal which we restate as: Whether the State 

presented sufficient evidence beyond a reasonable doubt to sustain Lewis’ 

conviction. 

FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY

[4] On January 12, 2013, Antan Purnell (Purnell) and his relatives went to a bar in 

Indianapolis, Indiana to celebrate the birthday of his cousin. As the night wore 

into the early morning hours of January 13, the bar became crowded with 

people, and Purnell and another patron played a game of pool. While playing, 

Purnell saw a five-dollar bill on the ground near the pool table; he picked it up 

and put it in his pocket. Immediately, Purnell felt a tap on the shoulder and 

heard somebody say, “[G]ive me my mother fucking money.” (Transcript p. 

290). Purnell turned around and saw Lewis standing behind him. Purnell 

refused to return the money. There was some verbal sparring between the two, 

and at one point, Lewis told Purnell, “I’m going to show you’re not tough . . . 

I’d hate for somebody to die over five dollars.” (Tr. p. 292). Two other men 

who came to the bar with Lewis approached Lewis and started “pulling up their 

pants,” which Purnell took as an indication they were ready to fight. (Tr. p. 
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 49A02-1404-CR-264 | January 26, 2015 Page 3 of 6

293). Shortly thereafter, Lewis and the two men left the pool table, and Purnell 

continued shooting pool. Alone, Lewis returned to the pool table area a short 

while later and sat on a barstool right behind Purnell. Bothered by his presence, 

Purnell asked Lewis what he was doing. Lewis did not respond; instead, he 

warned a couple seated nearby by stating, “[I]f I was you all [sic]. . . I would 

move . . . and if it goes off and hits you then it ain’t [sic] my fault.” (Tr. p. 303). 

Not believing that Lewis was armed, Purnell responded to the indirect threat by 

stating, “[I]f you’re going to shoot me[,] then shoot me.” (Tr. p. 303). At that 

point, Lewis brandished his gun and pointed it toward Purnell. Responding to 

the imminent threat, Purnell pushed Lewis’ arm and the gun discharged. 

Purnell then struck Lewis in the face, and the two men fell to the ground with 

Purnell landing on top of Lewis. Purnell continued to strike Lewis in the face 

using his right hand, and with his left hand, he restrained Lewis’ hand which 

held the gun. Lewis, however, was able to overcome Purnell’s clutch and 

started firing, striking Purnell once in the stomach. Not knowing that he had 

been shot, Purnell continued to punch Lewis but when the bullet wound started 

to burn, Purnell loosened his grip and Lewis wiggled away. Determined to stop 

Lewis from escaping, Purnell grabbed Lewis’ foot, however, Lewis turned 

around, pointed the gun to Purnell’s head and pulled the trigger. The gun did 

not go off, and Lewis ran out of the bar. 

[5] On January 15, 2013, the State filed an Information charging Lewis with Count 

I, attempted murder, a Class A felony, I.C. §§ 35-42-1-1; -41-5-1(2013); and 

Count II, carrying a handgun without a license, a Class A misdemeanor, I.C. § 
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 49A02-1404-CR-264 | January 26, 2015 Page 4 of 6

35-47-2-1. On the morning of the trial, on January 13, 2014, the State amended 

the Information correcting the offense date from January 13, 2012, to January 

13, 2013. A two-day jury trial was held on January 13-14, 2014, and at the 

close of the evidence, the jury only returned a guilty verdict for attempted 

murder. On March 19, 2014, at Lewis’ sentencing hearing, the State dismissed 

Count II, and the trial court sentenced Lewis to thirty years with ten years 

suspended to the Department of Correction. 

[6] Lewis now appeals. Additional information will be provided as necessary. 

DISCUSSION AND DECISION

[7] Lewis argues that there is insufficient evidence to support his conviction of 

attempted murder. Specifically, Lewis argues that the evidence did not permit a 

reasonable inference that he had the specific intent to kill Purnell. 

[8] Our standard of review for sufficiency claims is well settled. We neither 

reweigh the evidence nor judge the credibility of the witnesses. Perrey v. State, 

824 N.E.2d 372, 373 (Ind. Ct. App. 2005), trans. denied. We only consider the 

evidence most favorable to the judgment and the reasonable inferences to be 

drawn therefrom. Id. Where there is substantial evidence of probative value to 

support the judgment, it will not be set aside. Id.

[9] A conviction for attempted murder requires proof of specific intent to kill. 

Spradlin v. State, 569 N.E.2d 948, 950 (Ind. 1991). Intent to kill may be inferred 

from the use of a deadly weapon in a manner likely to cause death or great 

bodily injury, in addition to the nature of the attack, and the circumstances 
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 49A02-1404-CR-264 | January 26, 2015 Page 5 of 6

surrounding the crime. Gall v. State, 811 N.E.2d 969, 975 (Ind. Ct. App. 2004), 

trans. denied. Likewise, an assailant’s words may be indicative of an intent to 

kill the victim. Tancil v. State, 956 N.E.2d 1204, 1210 (Ind. Ct. App. 2011). 

[10] Here, our review of the evidence reveals that after Purnell refused to hand over 

the five-dollar bill, Lewis threatened him by stating, “I’d hate for someone to 

die over five dollars.” (Tr. p. 292). Lewis also warned bystanders to leave the 

pool table area by stating, “[I]f I was you all [sic]. . . I would move . . . and if it 

goes off and hits you then it ain’t [sic] my fault.” (Tr. p. 303). Shortly after 

Lewis made that statement, Lewis drew a handgun and aimed it at Purnell’s 

head. Purnell pushed Lewis’ arm away and the gun discharged, missing 

Purnell. In the ensuing struggle, Lewis fired multiple shots, striking Purnell 

once in the stomach. Finally, before running away from Purnell, Lewis pointed 

the gun to Purnell’s head and pulled the trigger. Fortunately, the gun did not 

go off and Lewis fled from the bar. Lewis’ argument that the shots were fired 

while trying to defend himself from Purnell amounts to an invitation for this 

court to reweigh the evidence, which we will not do. See Perrey, 824 N.E.2d at 

373.

[11] Based on the facts surrounding the shooting, including Lewis’ statements and 

conduct, the jury could reasonably infer that Lewis acted with the intent to kill 

Purnell. 
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 49A02-1404-CR-264 | January 26, 2015 Page 6 of 6

CONCLUSION

[12] Based on the foregoing, we find that there is sufficient evidence to support 

Lewis’ conviction of attempted murder. 

[13] Affirmed. 

[14] Vaidik, C.J. and Baker, J. concur