Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 71A04-1507-CR-913 | May 24, 2016 Page 1 of 11

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

Mark S. Lenyo

South Bend, Indiana

ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE

Gregory F. Zoeller

Attorney General of Indiana

Christina D. Pace

Deputy Attorney General

Indianapolis, Indiana

I N T H E

COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA

Juwan Jones,

Appellant-Defendant,

v.

State of Indiana,

Appellee-Plaintiff.

May 24, 2016

Court of Appeals Case No.

71A04-1507-CR-913

Appeal from the St. Joseph 

Superior Court

The Honorable John M. 

Marnocha, Judge

Trial Court Cause No.

71D02-1407-F1-1

Najam, Judge.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 71A04-1507-CR-913 | May 24, 2016 Page 2 of 11

Statement of the Case

[1] Juwan Jones appeals his conviction for attempted murder, a Level 1 felony, and 

aggravated battery, as a Level 3 felony, following a jury trial. Jones raises three 

issues on appeal which we consolidate and restate as follows:

1. Whether the trial court abused its discretion when it denied 

Jones’ motion to dismiss the attempted murder charge.

2. Whether the State presented sufficient evidence to support his 

convictions.

[2] We affirm.

Facts and Procedural History

[3] On July 9, 2014, between 10:00 p.m. and 11:00 p.m., Willie Menyard went 

with his son, Willie Thomas, to a gas station located at Western Avenue and 

Falcon Avenue in South Bend to fill his son’s vehicle with gas. Menyard saw 

his niece at the gas station, spoke with her, pumped gas into Thomas’ vehicle, 

and went inside the gas station’s convenience store to pay.

[4] While Menyard was inside the store, a red vehicle with a white top, later 

identified as Jones’ vehicle, entered the gas station parking lot. After Menyard 

exited the store and had walked a few feet toward Thomas’ vehicle, the 

passenger in the red vehicle, later identified as Jones, reached across the driver, 

later identified as Isaiah Samelton, and aimed a gun in Menyard’s direction. 

Then Menyard, Thomas, and the gas station cashier, Tony Garcia, all heard a 

round of multiple gun shots, but none of them saw who was shooting. At that 
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 71A04-1507-CR-913 | May 24, 2016 Page 3 of 11

time, Menyard was struck with a bullet which went into the right side of his 

back near the rib area and through his right arm. Menyard stated that the 

bleeding “felt like water . . . running down [his] back.” Tr. at 79. Thomas 

drove Menyard to the hospital where Menyard’s wounds were treated and 

Menyard was kept overnight. 

[5] In the meantime, Garcia heard several more gun shots as he observed the red 

and white vehicle circling the parking lot, and he called the police. Garcia then

observed the red and white car pull up to the west side of the gas station, and he

heard another round of gun shots, which sounded like more than one gun being 

shot. There were a total of twenty-three gun shots at the gas station that 

evening. The gas station had one operating surveillance camera on top of the 

entrance to its convenience store, and that camera caught video of the red and 

white car and the shootings. 

[6] South Bend Police Officer Greg Howard, along with other officers, was 

dispatched to the gas station due to a ShotSpotter1 alert, and he arrived on the 

scene after Menyard had already been taken to the hospital. Officer Howard 

watched the gas station’s surveillance camera footage, which showed that a red 

Buick with a light colored top, heavy damage to the driver’s side door, a 

 

1

 ShotSpotter is an acoustic gunshot detection and location system produced and operated by SST, Inc. that 

uses microphones in a geographic area to listen for the sound of gunfire. ShotSpotter detects and records the 

sound of gunfire and uses multilateration (similar to triangulation) to determine the location of the gunfire. It 

then reports that location to the local law enforcement agencies that are its customers, which here included

the South Bend Police Department. 
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 71A04-1507-CR-913 | May 24, 2016 Page 4 of 11

temporary license plate, and a luggage rack on the trunk was involved in the 

shooting. Officer Howard also had a description of the driver of the car as a 

black male with no shirt on and the passenger of the car as a black male with 

dreadlocks. 

[7] A short time after viewing the surveillance footage, Officer Howard began a 

search for the red Buick. He saw a red Buick that matched the description of 

the suspect vehicle parked in front of a house on Meade Street, not far from the 

gas station on Western Avenue. He observed a woman and two men on the 

front porch of the house, and the men matched the description of the suspects. 

Officer Howard surveilled the house and saw the two suspects enter the red 

Buick and travel south. Officer Howard and another officer, Officer Anuar 

Velazquez, began following the red Buick. Officer Howard triggered his lights 

and sirens to initiate a traffic stop and the red Buick ultimately stopped on 

Huron Street. The passenger then exited the vehicle and started to run down a 

nearby alley.

[8] Officer Howard chased after the passenger while Officer Velzquez stayed with 

the red Buick and ultimately detained the driver, Samelton. Officer Howard 

saw the passenger, later identified as Jones, attempt and fail to jump over a 

privacy fence. At that point Officer Howard saw Jones “bobble something” 

and observed something drop to the ground. Tr. at 110. Jones proceeded to 

run through a vacant lot as Officer Howard chased after him and yelled, 

“Police! Stop running!” Id. Jones ultimately stopped and laid down, and 

Officer Howard detained him. 
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 71A04-1507-CR-913 | May 24, 2016 Page 5 of 11

[9] Officer Howard then went back to the area by the privacy fence where he saw 

something fall to the ground, and he found a loaded brown handgun and a gun 

magazine near the handgun. Crime scene technicians also searched the crime 

scene areas of the gas station and the traffic stop, and they found shell casings at 

the gas station, a plastic bag containing a number of unfired bullets on the 

ground just outside the Buick’s passenger-side door, two Smith and Wesson 

gun magazines in the Buick’s glove box, and shell casings on the driver’s side 

floor board of the Buick. The following day, Officer Howard and another 

officer went back to the scene of the traffic stop and found a second handgun on 

the other side of the privacy fence that Jones had attempted to jump over. 

Ballistics confirmed that the spent shell casings recovered from the gas station 

crime scene had been fired from the two guns recovered at the scene of the 

traffic stop. The crime lab also found Jones’ fingerprints on the two gun 

magazines that had been found in the Buick’s glove box. 

[10] Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives Agent Sheldon Scott

interviewed Jones on the night of July 9, and Jones admitted that the red Buick 

in which he was stopped and which appeared in the surveillance footage

belonged to him and that he was in that car the entire night of July 9. Jones 

also admitted that the first handgun recovered at the scene of the traffic stop 

was his gun and that he had it with him the entire evening of July 9. Jones 

denied being at the gas station on July 9 and denied any involvement in the 

shooting. He also denied knowing Samelton. Jones subsequently made a 
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 71A04-1507-CR-913 | May 24, 2016 Page 6 of 11

telephone call from jail to his mother and told her that the police “got [him] on 

camera.” State’s Ex. 100.

[11] On July 11, 2014, the State charged Jones with attempted murder, a Level 1 

felony, and aggravated battery, as a Level 3 felony. On April 22, 2015, Jones 

filed a motion to dismiss the attempted murder charge on the grounds that the 

charging information failed to name an alleged victim. The trial court 

summarily denied that motion on the same day because the motion was 

untimely.

[12] Following a trial on April 22 and 23, 2015, a jury found Jones guilty as 

charged. On June 22, 2015, the trial court sentenced Jones to an executed term 

of thirty years for attempted murder and an executed term of nine years for 

aggravated battery, with the sentences to run concurrently. This appeal ensued. 

Discussion and Decision

Issue One: Motion to Dismiss

[13] Jones contends that the trial court erred in denying his motion to dismiss. 

Jones’ motion alleged that the State’s failure to identify in the charging 

information the specific victim of the alleged attempted murder violated the 

Sixth Amendment to the United States Constitution and Article 1, Section 13 of 

the Indiana Constitution.2 We review a trial court’s decision on a motion to 

 

2

 Specifically, Jones alleged the lack of the victim’s identity in the charging information denied him his 

federal and state constitutional rights to be informed of the nature and cause of the action against him.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 71A04-1507-CR-913 | May 24, 2016 Page 7 of 11

dismiss for an abuse of discretion, and we reverse the decision only where it is 

clearly against the logic and effect of the facts and circumstances. See, e.g., State 

v. Gill, 949 N.E.2d 848, 849 (Ind. Ct. App. 2011), trans. denied. 

[14] Indiana Code Section 35-34-1-4(b)(1) (2014) requires that a motion to dismiss 

be filed “no later than . . . twenty (20) days” prior to the omnibus date when the 

defendant is charged with a felony. Here, the omnibus date was September 22, 

2014. Appellant’s App. at A-69; Tr. at 4. Yet Jones did not file his motion to 

dismiss until April 22, 2015, which was 213 days after the omnibus date. When 

a defendant fails to timely file his motion to dismiss, the statute provides that 

the trial court may “summarily den[y]” the motion if it is based on a ground 

specified in Indiana Code Section 35-34-1-4(a)(1)-(5). Ind. Code § 35-34-1-4(b). 

Jones’ motion to dismiss was based upon either Indiana Code Section 35-34-1-

4(a)(1) (the indictment or information is defective) or Indiana Code Section 35-

34-1-4(a)(4) (the indictment or information does not state the offense with 

sufficient certainty). Therefore, the trial court did not abuse its discretion in 

summarily denying his untimely motion to dismiss.

Issue Two: Sufficiency of the Evidence

Standard of Review

[15] Jones maintains that the State failed to provide sufficient evidence to support 

either of his convictions. In reviewing a sufficiency of the evidence claim, we 

neither reweigh the evidence nor assess the credibility of the witnesses. See, e.g., 

Jackson v. State, 925 N.E.2d 369, 375 (Ind. 2010). We consider only the 
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 71A04-1507-CR-913 | May 24, 2016 Page 8 of 11

probative evidence and reasonable inferences therefrom that support the 

conviction, Gorman v. State, 968 N.E.2d 845, 847 (Ind. Ct. App. 2012), trans. 

denied, and we “consider conflicting evidence most favorably to the trial court’s 

ruling,” Wright v. State, 828 N.E.2d 346, 352 (Ind. 2005). We affirm if the 

probative evidence and reasonable inferences drawn from that evidence “could 

have allowed a reasonable trier of fact to find the defendant guilty beyond a 

reasonable doubt.” Jackson, 925 N.E.2d at 375.

Attempted Murder

[16] Pursuant to Indiana Code Sections 35-41-5-1 and 35-42-1-1(1), to prove that 

Jones attempted to commit murder, the State was required to show that, with 

the intent to commit the crime of murder, Jones discharged a firearm in the 

direction of others with the intent to kill, which conduct comprised a substantial 

step toward the commission of the crime of murder. On appeal, Jones asserts 

that the State failed to provide sufficient evidence that (1) he discharged a 

firearm at the gas station and (2) he had the specific intent to kill. However, the 

State has met its burden.

[17] Although Jones is correct that no witness saw Jones discharge a firearm, a 

conviction may be based on circumstantial evidence alone. Fry v. State, 885 

N.E.2d 742, 750 (Ind. Ct. App. 2008), trans. denied. Here, the State provided 

the following circumstantial evidence that Jones was one of the shooters at the 

gas station on July 9, 2014: (1) the surveillance footage from the gas station 

shows Jones’ car entering the gas station parking lot with the dreadlocked 
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 71A04-1507-CR-913 | May 24, 2016 Page 9 of 11

passenger leaning over a shirtless driver and shooting a firearm; (2) Jones 

admitted to his mother in a jail house telephone call that the police “got [him] 

on camera,” State’s Ex. 100; (3) Jones admitted that the car shown in the 

surveillance recording was his car and that he was in his car the entire evening 

of July 9; (4) on that same evening, after the shootings, Officer Howard spotted 

Jones’ car in front of a house near the gas station where a man with dreadlocks 

(Jones) was sitting on the porch with a man with no shirt on (Samelton); (5) 

Officer Howard then saw Samelton and Jones get into Jones’ car and drive 

away; (6) Officer Howard then pulled over Jones’ car and saw Jones run away, 

attempt to climb a privacy fence, and drop an object; (7) the object Jones 

dropped was a gun which ballistics determined had fired the spent shell casings 

found at the scene of the gas station; (8) Jones admitted that the gun was his 

and that he had the gun with him the entire evening of July 9. This 

circumstantial evidence is more than sufficient to prove that Jones was one of 

the shooters at the gas station. 

[18] The evidence was also sufficient to prove Jones fired the gun with the intent to 

kill. “Intent to kill may be inferred from the use of a deadly weapon in a 

manner likely to cause death or great bodily injury.” Tharpe v. State, 955 

N.E.2d 836, 844 (Ind. Ct. App. 2011) (citing Bethel v. State, 730 N.E.2d 1242, 

1245 (Ind. 2000)), trans. denied. And, “[d]ischarging a weapon in the direction 

of a victim is substantial evidence from which the jury could infer intent to kill.” 

Id. (citing Fry, 885 N.E.2d at 750). Here, the evidence cited above showed that 
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 71A04-1507-CR-913 | May 24, 2016 Page 10 of 11

Jones fired a gun several times in the direction of Menyard. The State provided 

sufficient evidence to support Jones’ attempted murder conviction.

Aggravated Battery

[19] Pursuant to Indiana Code Section 35-42-2-1.5, to prove that Jones committed 

aggravated battery, the State was required to show that he knowingly or 

intentionally inflicted injury on Menyard that created a substantial risk of death. 

Jones contends that the State failed to provide sufficient evidence that 

Menyard’s injury created a substantial risk of death. 

[20] “[I]n reviewing a sufficiency claim concerning whether the injuries created a 

substantial risk of death, we look to the observable facts, including the nature 

and location of the injury, and the treatment provided.” Oeth v. State, 775 

N.E.2d 696, 702 (Ind. Ct. App. 2002) (citing Tingle v. State, 632 N.E.2d 345, 

354 (Ind. 1994)), trans. denied. However, expert medical testimony is not 

required to prove a substantial risk of death existed. Fleming v. State, 833 

N.E.2d 84, 88 (Ind. Ct. App. 2005) (citing Wilcher v. State, 771 N.E.2d 113, 117 

(Ind. Ct. App. 2002), trans. denied). 

[21] Here, the victim testified that the bullet went all the way through his back and 

right arm, causing so much bleeding that it “felt like water . . . running down 

[his] back.” Tr. at 79. He also testified that his son immediately drove him to 

the hospital, where he was treated in the emergency room and kept overnight. 

In addition, the State submitted into evidence four pictures of Menyard being 

treated in the hospital, including up-close photographs of his still-bleeding 
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 71A04-1507-CR-913 | May 24, 2016 Page 11 of 11

wounds, and these photographs were published to the jury. In Oeth, we found 

similar evidence sufficient to prove the injuries created a substantial risk of 

death. Oeth, 775 N.E.2d at 702. The evidence was sufficient to support Jones’ 

aggravated battery conviction.

[22] Affirmed.

Riley, J., and May, J., concur.