Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 45A05-1412-CR-563 | August 21, 2015 Page 1 of 4

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 A. Bates

Office of the Lake County Public 

Defender

Crown Point, Indiana

ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE

Gregory F. Zoeller

Attorney General of Indiana

Karl M. Scharnberg

Deputy Attorney General

Indianapolis, Indiana

I N T H E

COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA

Percy Lee Blake,

Appellant-Defendant,

v.

State of Indiana,

Appellee-Plaintiff

August 21, 2015

Court of Appeals Case No.

45A05-1412-CR-563

Appeal from the Lake Superior 

Court

The Honorable Diane Ross 

Boswell, Judge

Trial Court Cause No.

45G03-1112-FC-154

Baker, Judge.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 45A05-1412-CR-563 | August 21, 2015 Page 2 of 4

[1] Percy Blake pleaded guilty to theft after making purchases with Citibank credit 

cards that he obtained fraudulently. The trial court ordered him to pay 

restitution to Citibank in the amount of $8,715.87. Blake appeals, arguing that 

this amount is too high. Finding sufficient evidence to support this amount, we 

affirm. 

Facts

[2] On December 22, 2011, the State charged Blake with fraud on a financial 

institution, a class C felony, and synthetic identity deception, a class D felony. 

On July 18, 2014, the State amended the charge, adding one count of theft, a 

class D felony. That same day, Blake entered into a plea agreement, in which 

he agreed to plead guilty to theft in exchange for dismissal of the two original 

counts. The agreement left sentencing open, allowing both parties to argue

their positions at a later hearing. 

[3] On October 30, 2014, the trial court held this hearing. After accepting Blake’s 

guilty plea, the trial court sentenced him to three years in the Department of 

Correction, to be served in the Lake County Community Corrections 

Kimbrough Work Program. It also ordered that he pay Citibank $8,715.87 in 

restitution, as a Citibank representative testified at the hearing that Blake had 

used fraudulently obtained credit cards to make purchases in this amount. 

Blake now appeals, challenging the amount of restitution. 
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 45A05-1412-CR-563 | August 21, 2015 Page 3 of 4

Discussion and Decision

[4] Blake believes the evidence presented at the hearing was insufficient to support 

the trial court’s award of restitution in the amount of $8,715.87. We review a 

trial court’s order of restitution for an abuse of discretion. Rich v. State, 890 

N.E.2d 44, 49 (Ind.Ct.App.2008). An order of restitution must be supported by 

sufficient evidence of the actual loss sustained by the victim. Id. “The amount 

of actual loss is a factual matter that can be determined only upon the 

presentation of evidence.” Id. (quotations omitted). Under an abuse of 

discretion standard, we will not reverse the trial court “if there is any rational 

basis in the record supporting its determination.” Shady v. Shady, 858 N.E.2d 

128, 143 (Ind. Ct. App. 2006).

[5] At the hearing, the State called Bryan Rozanski, a representative of Citibank, to 

testify. Rozanski testified that, after reviewing Citibank’s records, he believed 

that Blake had made $8,715.87 in purchases using fraudulently obtained credit 

cards while in Indiana. Tr. p. 19. The records that Rozanski relied on were not 

entered into evidence. On cross-examination, Rozanski testified that he was 

not aware of who had signed for the purchases. Tr. p. 20. Blake presented no 

evidence of his own, but argued to the trial court that he believed he had only 

made approximately $3,000 worth of fraudulent purchases while in Indiana. 

Tr. p. 21. The trial court found Rozanski’s testimony to be credible, and 

ordered Blake to pay restitution in the amount of $8,715.87.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 45A05-1412-CR-563 | August 21, 2015 Page 4 of 4

[6] While Blake disagrees with the trial court’s decision, we believe this evidence 

was sufficient to allow the trial court to reasonably conclude as it did. Here, 

Blake had admittedly exerted unauthorized control over Citibank credit cards. 

Tr. p. 8-10. Following Rozanski’s testimony, Blake did not contend that he did 

not make fraudulent purchases using the accounts that Rozanski referenced nor 

did he question Rozanski’s ability to review the records of those accounts 

properly. In fact, he assured the trial court that he was not taking issue with the 

amounts reflected in those records. Tr. p. 37. His argument boiled down to 

little more than the insinuation that someone else could have used the cards to 

make some of the purchases, an argument he reiterates on appeal.1 Tr. p. 35-37. 

[7] Blake has not shown that the evidence supporting the trial court’s conclusion is 

insufficient, he merely proposes a different set of facts. However, we leave 

factual determinations to the trial court and, on appeal, we do not reweigh the 

evidence or judge the credibility of the witnesses. Shady, 858 N.E.2d at 143. 

Accordingly, we may not entertain Blake’s request. 

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

Riley, J., and Brown, J., concur.

 

1 Blake argued that there was more than one authorized user on the account and that, because the State could 

not produce evidence of who had signed for the purchases, it could not show that Blake had made the 

purchases. However, the State pointed out that Blake was not signing under his own name and that, had the 

case gone to trial, it would have introduced evidence that Blake was acting as both authorized users under 

two aliases and that he had been caught carrying false identification corresponding to both of those aliases. 

Blake did not object to these assertions. Tr. p. 28-31.