Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 49A02-1510-CR-1557 | July 1, 2016 Page 1 of 7

ATTORNEY FOR APPELLANT

Jill M. Acklin

McGrath, LLC

Carmel, Indiana

ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE

Gregory F. Zoeller

Attorney General of Indiana

Justin F. Roebel

Deputy Attorney General 

Indianapolis, Indiana

I N T H E

COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA

Adrian Anthony,

Appellant-Defendant,

v.

State of Indiana,

Appellee-Plaintiff.

July 1, 2016

Court of Appeals Case No.

49A02-1510-CR-1557

Appeal from the Marion Superior 

Court

The Honorable Mark D. Stoner, 

Judge

Trial Court Cause No.

49G06-1311-FA-075931

Bradford, Judge.

Case Summary

[1] In 2013, Appellant-Defendant Adrian Anthony, along with three other men, 

committed a violent burglary at an Indianapolis home belonging to R.N. and 

his wife, B.N. During the burglary, the men brutally attacked and threatened to 
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 49A02-1510-CR-1557 | July 1, 2016 Page 2 of 7

kill the homeowners, ransacked the house, sexually assaulted B.N., and took 

the couple’s debit cards. At one point, one of the men took R.N.’s debit card to 

a nearby ATM and attempted to withdraw money using a personal 

identification number (“PIN”) which R.N. had given him. However, the PIN 

did not work and the man was unable to withdraw any money. Upon his 

return, Anthony threatened to kill R.N. for providing an incorrect PIN and 

R.N. offered to go to the ATM and get the money himself. Anthony then took 

R.N. to the ATM at gunpoint. R.N. was unable to withdraw money using his 

debit card because his account had been locked due to too many unsuccessful 

attempts. Ultimately, Anthony returned to the ATM with B.N. and was able to 

withdraw $500 using B.N.’s debit card. 

[2] A jury found Anthony guilty of thirty-five counts relating to the burglary which 

included fourteen counts of forgery (one for each attempt to withdraw money 

using the victims’ debit cards). Anthony received six years for each forgery 

conviction to be served concurrently and an aggregate sentence of eighty-eight 

years executed in the Department of Correction (“DOC”). On appeal, 

Anthony argues that there is insufficient evidence to support his convictions for 

forgery because the debit cards used were not forged instruments. Concluding 

otherwise, we affirm. 

Facts and Procedural History 

[3] In the early morning hours of October 24, 2013, Anthony and three 

accomplices––Michael Pugh, Taiwan Lundy, and Trae Spells––broke into a 
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 49A02-1510-CR-1557 | July 1, 2016 Page 3 of 7

Northside-Indianapolis home belonging to R.N. and his wife, B.N. One of the 

men entered the bedroom and held R.N. and B.N. at gunpoint while the 

remaining group members ransacked the house taking anything of value 

including jewelry, purses, watches, electronics, and televisions. The individual 

holding the couple at gunpoint asked them where they kept their cash. When 

the couple responded that they did not keep money in the house, the individual 

fired the gun over their heads and continued to question them about where they 

kept their money until R.N. stated that their money was in the bank. R.N. then 

gave the men a PIN to use with his debit card. 

[4] The couple remained at gunpoint while one member of the group took B.N.’s 

2006 Jeep Commander to a nearby ATM and attempted to withdraw money 

from R.N.’s account without success. Eventually, the man returned and 

accused R.N. of lying about his PIN. The men threatened to kill the couple and 

R.N. offered to go to the ATM with the men to retrieve money, suggesting that 

the PIN may have been entered incorrectly. The group then violently assaulted 

R.N. before ultimately deciding to take R.N. to the ATM. 

[5] While being held at gunpoint, R.N. drove Anthony to the ATM and attempted 

to withdraw money himself. However, R.N. was unable to complete a 

transaction with the same ATM card because his account had been locked due 

to the number of unsuccessful prior attempts. Anthony then stated, “You lied 

to me again. You guys are dead.” Tr. p. 79. R.N. told Anthony that his wife 

had a separate account with a different ATM card and the two then returned to 

the house to retrieve it. 
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 49A02-1510-CR-1557 | July 1, 2016 Page 4 of 7

[6] After locating B.N.’s debit card, Anthony forced B.N. to drive him back to the 

ATM. Once at the ATM, B.N. attempted to withdraw $800 but the amount 

was denied because there is a maximum of $500 which may be withdrawn in a 

given period of time. B.N. then successfully withdrew $500 and gave it to 

Anthony. B.N. then attempted to make additional withdrawals but was 

unsuccessful. All told, there were thirteen attempted ATM transactions with 

only one being successful. The first five unsuccessful transactions occurred 

around 6:18 a.m., the second five unsuccessful transactions occurred around 

7:37 a.m., and the final three transactions, including the sole successful 

withdrawal, occurred around 8:01 a.m. 

[7] After returning to the house, Anthony and the other men tied up R.N. and 

B.N., loaded the stolen items into B.N.’s vehicle, and savagely beat the couple 

over the head with a DVD player before leaving the house. After they were 

sure that the group had left, the couple freed themselves and called 911. 

[8] The State charged Anthony with one count of Class A felony burglary, one 

count of Class A felony conspiracy to commit burglary, four counts of Class B 

felony robbery, eleven counts of Class B felony criminal confinement, two 

counts of Class C felony intimidation, thirteen counts of Class C felony forgery, 

one count of Class C felony conspiracy to commit forgery, one count of Class C 

felony sexual battery, one count of Class A felony criminal deviate conduct, 

three counts of Class C felony battery, and two counts of Class B felony 

carjacking. The jury found Anthony guilty on thirty-five counts, not guilty on 

one count of Class C felony battery, and was unable to reach a verdict regarding 
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 49A02-1510-CR-1557 | July 1, 2016 Page 5 of 7

sexual battery, criminal deviate conduct, and two counts of criminal 

confinement. Anthony received six years for each forgery conviction to be 

served concurrently and an aggregate sentence of eighty-eight years executed in 

the DOC.

Discussion and Decision 

[9] On appeal, Anthony argues that there is insufficient evidence to sustain his 

convictions for forgery. 

When reviewing the sufficiency of the evidence to support a 

conviction, appellate courts must consider only the probative 

evidence and reasonable inferences supporting the verdict. It is 

the fact-finder’s role, not that of appellate courts, to assess 

witness credibility and weigh the evidence to determine whether 

it is sufficient to support a conviction. To preserve this structure, 

when appellate courts are confronted with conflicting evidence, 

they must consider it most favorably to the trial court’s ruling. 

Appellate courts affirm the conviction unless no reasonable factfinder could find the elements of the crime proven beyond a 

reasonable doubt.

Drane v. State, 867 N.E.2d 144, 146 (Ind. 2007) (citations and quotations 

omitted). However, questions concerning the interpretation of a statute are 

legal issues which we review de novo. Rich v. State, 890 N.E.2d 44, 49 (Ind. Ct. 

App. 2008).

[10] Anthony argues that using the victims’ ATM cards did not qualify as “uttering” 

a written instrument for purposes of the forgery statute. Indiana code section 

35-43-5-2 (2014) provides that “A person who, with intent to defraud, makes, 
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 49A02-1510-CR-1557 | July 1, 2016 Page 6 of 7

utters, or possesses a written instrument in such a manner that it purports to 

have been made: (1) by another person...; or (4) by authority of one who did 

not give authority; commits forgery, a Class C felony.” The charging 

information alleged that Anthony and Spells “with the intent to defraud, 

utter[ed] to Chase Bank a written instrument, that is: a debit card...in such a 

manner that said instrument purported to have been made by the authority of 

[R.N. or B.N.], who did not give authority.” Appellant’s App. pp. 51-53. The 

jury was instructed that “utter,” as defined by Indiana code section 35-31.5-2-

345, means “to issue, authenticate, transfer, publish, deliver, sell, transmit, 

present, or use.” 

[11] At first glance, it appears that Anthony’s behavior qualifies as forgery under the 

express language of the statute. Anthony uttered (i.e., presented or used) 

written instruments––the victims’ debit cards––in a manner such that it 

appeared that the victims were authorizing withdrawals. Anthony argues that 

the victims’ debit cards were not forged and so he did not use a forged 

instrument. However, it is not an essential element of forgery that the 

instrument used necessarily be forged or inauthentic. Rather, impersonating 

another so as to use an authentic written instrument belonging to them without 

authorization is sufficient to prove forgery. Borjas v. State, 946 N.E.2d 1230, 

1233 (Ind. Ct. App. 2011), trans. denied; see also Green v. State, 945 N.E.2d 205 

(Ind. Ct. App. 2011)). 

[12] In Borjas, this court held that an individual who attempts to use a credit card 

belonging to another person, and authenticates that card with a signature 
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 49A02-1510-CR-1557 | July 1, 2016 Page 7 of 7

purporting to be the other person, can be convicted of forgery. Id. (“we hold 

that the State presented sufficient evidence that Borjas uttered a written 

instrument when she signed Hornbeak’s name to authenticate the purchases she 

made using Hornbeak’s credit card.”). The parties disagree on whether entering 

a PIN is analogous to signing another person’s name to authenticate a credit 

card. We find no meaningful distinction. 

[13] Using a debit card to withdraw money from an ATM is essentially the same as 

writing oneself a check to cash at the bank. If an individual steals a victim’s 

checkbook, forges the victim’s signature, and attempts to cash a check, then the 

individual is clearly guilty of forgery. The same logic applies to an ATM 

transaction. Like a signature, a personal identification number is a means by 

which the bank can attempt to verify a person’s identity and assure that they are 

authorized to access the account. By using the victims’ PINs, Anthony was 

attempting to defraud the bank by purporting to be the victims. We agree with 

the State that distinguishing ATM transactions as Anthony suggests would 

allow defendants to avoid criminal liability due to advances in technology. 

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

Bailey, J., and Altice, J., concur.