Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 02A04-1707-CR-1690 | April 11, 2018 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.

ATTORNEY FOR APPELLANT

Michelle F. Kraus

Fort Wayne, Indiana

ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE

Curtis T. Hill, Jr.

Attorney General of Indiana

Caryn N. Szyper

Deputy Attorney General

Indianapolis, Indiana

I N T H E

COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA

Lawrence J. Hill,

Appellant-Defendant,

v.

State of Indiana,

Appellee-Plaintiff

April 11, 2018

Court of Appeals Case No.

02A04-1707-CR-1690

Appeal from the Allen Superior 

Court

The Honorable John F. Surbeck, 

Judge

Trial Court Cause No.

02D04-1608-F3-50

Baker, Judge.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 02A04-1707-CR-1690 | April 11, 2018 Page 2 of 7

[1] Lawrence Hill appeals his convictions for Level 3 Felony Robbery1 and Level 3 

Felony Attempted Robbery,2 arguing that the evidence is insufficient to support 

his convictions. Finding the evidence sufficient, we affirm.

Facts

[2] Around 10:30 p.m. on August 23, 2016, Gabriella Chandler was cleaning the 

lobby of the McDonald’s where she worked in Fort Wayne when Hill entered 

the restaurant. Gabriella knew Hill because he had previously worked there, 

and he still visited to socialize after he started working at the Burger King 

across the street. Hill was wearing his Burger King uniform when he entered, 

which consisted of a black shirt with a Burger King logo, black pants, and a 

Burger King hat. Gabriella greeted Hill and spoke with him briefly. Hill then 

went to the restroom and Gabriella resumed cleaning the lobby. Shortly 

thereafter, Hill exited the bathroom, stopped in the lobby, looked around, and 

then left the restaurant through the side entrance.

[3] About twenty-five minutes later, just before the McDonald’s would close for the 

evening, a masked gunman, later identified as Hill, entered through the side 

entrance, walked around the front counter, and grabbed Gabriella by the back 

of her neck. Hill was wearing a white long-sleeved shirt, a black ski mask, black 

gloves, and black pants, and he was carrying a black semi-automatic handgun. 

 

1

Ind. Code § 35-42-5-1(a).

2

Id.; Ind. Code § 35-41-5-1(a).
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 02A04-1707-CR-1690 | April 11, 2018 Page 3 of 7

Hill shoved Gabriella toward the office in the back of the restaurant, put the 

gun to her head, and demanded money from the safe. Gabriella said, 

“Lawrence, I don’t have my keys.” Tr. Vol. I p. 110. With the gun still to 

Gabriella’s head, Hill responded, “that’s not me, I’m not Lawrence.” Id. at 

111. He pulled the trigger, but the gun did not fire.

[4] Alisha Duke, another McDonald’s employee who had worked with Hill, also 

recognized Hill and confronted him during the exchange in the office. She told 

him, “Lawrence, this is not funny, it’s not cute, you need to leave.” Id. at 185. 

Hill then grabbed Duke by the throat, put the gun to her head, and said, “you 

don’t know who I am, my name is not Lawrence.” Id. He pulled the trigger, 

but again, the gun did not fire.

[5] Meanwhile, Gabriella escaped the office and retrieved her cell phone from the 

front counter. Hill approached her and took her phone. Hill then grabbed 

Gabriella by the back of her neck, shoved her toward a cash register, and 

demanded that she get the money from it. Gabriella said, “Lawrence, there’s 

no money in this drawer.” Id. at 113. When Hill demanded money from the 

next cash register, Gabriella told him, “Lawrence, I’m not giving you any 

money.” Id. at 114. Myles Chandler, another McDonald’s employee, entered 

the restaurant and saw Hill pointing a gun at Gabriella. As Myles approached 

the counter, Hill released Gabriella and exited through the lobby’s side door. 

[6] Hill was arrested shortly thereafter. While sitting in the back of the police car, 

he asked the police officer why he was being detained. The officer told Hill that 
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 02A04-1707-CR-1690 | April 11, 2018 Page 4 of 7

he had been identified as the person who robbed the McDonald’s. Hill 

responded that he did not do it and asked, “how could they identify him if the 

subject was wearing a mask?” Id. at 240. The officer replied that he “never said 

anything about a mask.” Id. Hill then said that he would “have to be pretty 

stupid to rob somebody I know without a mask.” Id.

[7] On August 29, 2016, the State charged Hill with Level 3 felony robbery and 

Level 3 felony attempted robbery. A jury trial took place on May 31 and June 

1, 2017. During the trial, Gabriella identified Hill as the robber; she testified 

that she recognized Hill by his height, build, eyes, and voice, and therefore 

addressed Hill by name several times throughout the robbery. Duke also 

identified Hill as the robber; she testified that she recognized him by his voice 

and therefore also called him by name during the robbery.

[8] McKenna Meyer, another McDonald’s employee, testified that she saw the 

masked robber walk inside and hold a gun to Gabriella’s head. Meyer also 

knew Hill from when he was employed at McDonald’s, and she concluded that 

Hill was the robber based upon the height, physical build, and “familiar” eyes 

of the robber. Id. at 51. Myles also knew Hill from Hill’s employment at 

McDonald’s and from times when Hill had visited the restaurant. Myles 

testified that the robber was tall and skinny, that Hill’s build was “almost 

identical” to the robber’s, and that Hill’s height “perfectly” matched the 

robber’s. Id. at 79. Alisha Weemes, the general manager of the Burger King 

where Hill worked, also testified. Although Weemes did not witness the crime, 

she reviewed the surveillance footage of it. She testified that through working 
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 02A04-1707-CR-1690 | April 11, 2018 Page 5 of 7

with Hill, she became familiar with his style of walking, his build, and his 

mannerisms. She further testified that she believed Hill was the robber.

[9] The jury found Hill guilty as charged. On June 30, 2017, the trial court 

imposed concurrent sentences of ten years, with seven years executed and three 

years suspended to probation, for each offense. Hill now appeals.

Discussion and Decision

[10] Hill’s sole argument on appeal is that there is insufficient evidence supporting 

his convictions for robbery and attempted robbery. Specifically, he argues that 

the evidence does not show that he was the person who committed the 

robberies. When reviewing the sufficiency of the evidence to support a 

conviction, we must 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 witness credibility or reweigh the evidence. Id. We 

consider conflicting evidence most favorably to the trial court’s ruling. Id. We 

affirm the conviction unless no reasonable factfinder could find the elements of 

the crime proven beyond a reasonable doubt. Id.

[11] Identification testimony need not necessarily be unequivocal to sustain a 

conviction. Heeter v. State, 661 N.E.2d 612, 616 (Ind. Ct. App. 1996). 

Identification may be established entirely by circumstantial evidence and the 

logical inferences drawn therefrom. Bustamante v. State, 557 N.E.2d 1313, 1317 

(Ind. 1990). As with other sufficiency matters, we will not weigh the evidence 

or resolve questions of credibility when determining whether the identification 
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 02A04-1707-CR-1690 | April 11, 2018 Page 6 of 7

evidence is sufficient to sustain a conviction. Id. Rather, we examine the 

evidence and the reasonable inferences therefrom that support the conviction. 

Id.

[12] To convict Hill of Level 3 felony robbery, the State was required to prove

beyond a reasonable doubt that Hill knowingly took property from another 

person by using or threatening the use of force on any person or by putting any 

person in fear, and that he committed the offense while armed with a deadly 

weapon. I.C. § 35-42-5-1(a). To convict Hill of Level 3 felony attempted 

robbery, the State was required to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Hill 

knowingly engaged in conduct that constituted a substantial step toward 

commission of a robbery. Id.; I.C. § 35-41-5-1(a).

[13] The crux of Hill’s insufficiency argument is that each witness who identified 

him as the robber had previously provided statements to the police that 

contradicted their testimony at trial and that, although the witnesses testified 

that the robbery happened shortly before the restaurant closed at 11 p.m., the 

video surveillance footage showed the robbery occurred at approximately 10:30 

p.m. It is the factfinder’s role to assess the credibility of the witnesses and 

weigh the evidence. Here, the State presented witnesses who identified Hill as 

the robber. During the trial, Hill cross-examined each of the witnesses about 

their identifications and raised the issue of the timestamp on the surveillance 

footage. His argument on appeal is an invitation for us to assess the credibility 

of the witnesses and to reweigh the evidence—an invitation we decline.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 02A04-1707-CR-1690 | April 11, 2018 Page 7 of 7

[14] Moreover, the State offered two eyewitnesses—Gabriella and Duke—who 

unequivocally identified Hill as the robber. They both knew Hill from when he 

worked at the McDonald’s and from his subsequent visits to the McDonald’s to 

socialize after he started working at the Burger King across the street. Gabriella 

testified that she recognized Hill by his height, build, eyes, and voice. Duke 

testified that she recognized Hill by his voice. The other witnesses identified 

Hill as well. Meyer testified that she concluded that the robber was Hill based 

upon the height, physical build, and “familiar” eyes of the robber. Tr. Vol. I p. 

51. Myles testified that Hill’s build—tall and skinny—matched that of the 

robber. And Weemes testified that, after reviewing the video surveillance 

footage, she believed Hill was the robber based on the build, gait, and 

mannerisms that the robber shared with Hill. This identification evidence is 

sufficient to support Hill’s convictions. 

[15] The judgment of the trial court is affirmed.

Kirsch, J., and Bradford, J., concur.