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: ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE:

JEFFREY L. SANFORD GREGORY F. ZOELLER

South Bend, Indiana Attorney General of Indiana

GARY R. ROM

Deputy Attorney General

Indianapolis, Indiana

IN THE

COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA

PATRICK DEWAYNE CARR, JR., )

)

Appellant-Defendant, )

)

vs. ) No. 71A05-1105-CR-261

)

STATE OF INDIANA, )

)

Appellee-Plaintiff. )

APPEAL FROM THE ST. JOSEPH SUPERIOR COURT 

The Honorable R.W. Chamblee, Jr., Judge

Cause No. 71D08-0910-FB-127

April 11, 2012

 

MEMORANDUM DECISION - NOT FOR PUBLICATION

KIRSCH, Judge 
2

Patrick Dewayne Carr, Jr. (“Carr”) appeals after a jury trial from his convictions for

one count of robbery1as a Class B felony, one count of burglary2as a Class B felony, and one 

count of attempted murder3as a Class A felony. Carr presents the following issue for our 

review: whether there is sufficient evidence to support his convictions.

We affirm.

FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY

On October 28, 2009, Shelby Taylor (“Shelby”) made plans with Paige Shields 

(“Paige”) to spend some time at Rowland “Roy” Mwaungulu’s (“Roy”) apartment in the 

Regency Royal (“Regency”) apartment complex in Mishawaka, Indiana. Paige, who was 

seventeen years old, had recently met Roy, who was twenty-six years old but Shelby, who 

was eighteen years old, had never met him. Later in the evening, Paige picked up Shelby at 

her house. Two men were in the car. One of the men was Martel “Threat” Washington

(“Threat”), who also went by the name Martel Coleman, and who was Paige’s boyfriend. 

The other man was known as City. Paige dropped off the two men at another apartment 

complex before continuing to drive with Shelby to Roy’s apartment.

When Paige and Shelby arrived at the Regency, Roy buzzed them in. Paige was in 

and out of Roy’s apartment while on the phone with Threat because of “baby daddy drama.” 

Tr. at 21. Paige left the main door, where Roy had buzzed in the two girls, ajar. Between 

 

1

See Ind. Code § 35-42-5-1.

2

See Ind. Code § 35-43-2-1.

3

See Ind. Code § 35-41-5-1 (attempt); Ind. Code § 35-42-1-1 (murder).
3

8:44 p.m. and midnight, Paige made fourteen outgoing texts or phone calls to Threat. At 

9:34 p.m. and 10:04 p.m., she placed phone calls to Carr. 

Paige left the apartment, but returned approximately fifteen minutes later. When she 

returned, she left the door to Roy’s apartment cracked open, stating that she did that because 

she was waiting for a phone call. Three men wearing all black and armed with gunssuddenly

kicked in the door to Roy’s apartment. The men started screaming “get on the ground, 

m*th*r f*ck*r.” Tr. at 24. Shelby started to go to the floor, but Roy stood up and tried to run 

from the intruders. Roy saw Carr holding a gun. The men started shooting at Roy. Shelby 

saw Paige run out of the apartment and followed her. Roy ran down a hallway in his 

apartment to his bedroom and called 911. He hid in a closet there until police officers 

arrived.

Roy discovered that his keys to his apartment and car were missing. Police found 

spent .25 caliber and 9mm casings outside and inside Roy’s apartment and saw bullet holes 

in the wall and in the door to the apartment. Approximately five minutes after running out of 

Roy’s apartment, Shelby and Paige returned to Roy’s apartment. Paige told the officers that 

she, too, was missing her car keys to her burgundy Oldsmobile. Based on that information,

officers watched the vehicle to see if anyone would come and pick it up. Vanessa Leal 

(“Vanessa”), who was storing her belongings at the apartment of Threat’s sister, Danielle, 

saw Threat earlier in the day at Danielle’s apartment with a gun “tucked into his pants.” Id. 

at 141. Vanessa left the apartment and returned later in the day. At that time,she saw Threat 

there and two of his friends. Vanessa identified Carr as one of the individuals she saw. She 
4

said that each of them was wearing dark clothing and described their behavior as being in a 

hurry “looking out the window, whispering among themselves, just jittery.” Id. at 144. 

After the crimes had occurred, Vanessa gave Carr, Threat, and the other man, a ride 

to the Regency to find the keys to Threat’s burgundy Oldsmobile. While at the Regency, 

Threat and Carr unsuccessfully searched for the car keys in the parking lot, while the third 

man remained in the car. Vanessa then drove the three men back to Danielle’s apartment. 

Vanessa offered to walk to the Regency to search for the missing keys. She did so and 

successfully found the keys. Vanessa then started to drive Threat’s car back to Danielle’s 

apartment when officers pulled the vehicle over. She told the officers that she was driving 

Threat’s car, that he and two other men were at Danielle’s apartment, and gave them their 

location.

After obtaining a search warrant for Danielle’s apartment, the SWAT team entered 

and found Carr in the bedroom and Threat and the other man in the bedroom closet. Officers 

recovered .38 caliber bullets and a loaded .25 caliber handgun. Roy’s keys were found in a 

bush just outside the apartment.

Later that same evening, Roy identified Threat as one of the intruders from six in

loose photographs. Threat was the only person involved in the break-in whose photograph 

was included in that array. Police officers also transported Paige and Shelby to the police 

station for questioning. The next day, Roy identified Carr from a set of two photo arrays.

The State charged Carr with one count of robbery as a Class B felony, one count of 

burglary as a Class B felony, and one count of attempted murder as a Class A felony. After a 
5

jury trial, Carr was found guilty as charged. The trial court sentenced Carr to terms of ten 

years executed for each of the Class B felony convictions and to a term of thirty years, with 

twenty years executed and ten years suspended for the Class A felony conviction, each to be 

served concurrently, followed by a period of probation. Carr now appeals. 

DISCUSSION AND DECISION

Sufficiency of the Evidence

Carr challenges the sufficiency of the evidence supporting his convictions. When 

reviewing the sufficiency of the evidence, we consider only the probative evidence and 

reasonable inferences supporting the verdict. Mork v. State, 912 N.E.2d 408, 411 (Ind. Ct. 

App. 2009). We do not reweigh the evidence or reassess witness credibility. Id. We 

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

the conviction unless no reasonable fact-finder could find the elements of the crime proven 

beyond a reasonable doubt. Id. Carr’s attack on the sufficiency of the evidence for each of 

his convictions involves the identification testimony. He argues that without the

identification component of each offense, there is insufficient evidence to support his 

convictions for each crime.

In particular, Carr challenges Roy’s identification of him as one of the three men who 

broke into his apartment, took his keys, and fired shots at him. At trial, Roy testified that 

after he heard the sound from the door being kicked in, he looked up and saw three men. He 

identified Carr as the one he took a good look at, that Carr was standing by the door, and that 

Roy remembered what Carr’s eyes looked like. Roy gave the police detailed information
6

about the crimes. He also selected Carr’s photograph from a photo array and identified him 

in court as one of the intruders. At trial, Roy was questioned extensively about his ability to 

see the intruders, the length of time he saw them, and about his initial statements to police 

officers that he could not identify the intruders.

Vanessa testified that Carr was among the men who were at Danielle’s apartment on 

the night of the crimes and to whom she gave a ride to the Regency in order to look for 

missing keys. Officers found Carr in Danielle’s apartment in a bedroom, and Threat and 

another male were found hiding in the bedroom closet. 

Carr had an expert witness testify about problems with eyewitness identification. That 

witness also testified about Department of Justice guidelines regarding the collection of 

eyewitness identification. Corporal Michael Dube (“Corporal Dube”) of the Mishawaka 

Police Department had testified during the State’s case that he transported Vanessa to the 

police station after he and another officer pulled her over while driving Threat’s car. 

Vanessa told Corporal Dube that she was returning Threat’s car to him and that he was at 

Danielle’s apartment. The name she provided was Threat’s given name, Martel. Corporal 

Dube relayed that information to another officer investigating the crimes, and that officer 

provided him with several photos, including Threat’s photo, to show to Roy. Corporal Dube 

further testified that he had never conducted a photo lineup before, and that he was 

unfamiliar with Department of Justice Guidelines for such. He presented the photographs to 

Roy as a stack of photographs. Roy selected Threat’s photograph from the stack of photos he 

was shown. 
7

While the officer’s lack of familiarity with Department of Justice Guidelines for 

conducting photo lineups is worrisome, we conclude that the identification evidence was 

sufficient nonetheless. Carr’s attorney vigorously cross-examined the witnesses who 

identified Carr as one of the intruders and challenged their accounts of the crimes. Further, 

Carr’s attorney presented expert testimony about the reliability of eyewitness identification 

and the testimony of an officer who asked Roy, Paige, and Shelby if they recognized any of 

the suspects. That officer testified that they indicated they did not recognize anyone. Carr 

presented evidence to the jury challenging the credibility of the witnesses and the accuracy of 

their identification of Carr as one of the intruders. Any challenges to the identification 

evidence would be a consideration for the jury in their assessment of the weight to be given 

to that testimony. On review, we do not reweigh the evidence or reassess witness credibility. 

Mork , 912 N.E.2d at 411. Here, the identification evidence, while not overwhelming, is 

sufficient to support the convictions.

Although Carr does not challenge the sufficiency of the evidence in any other regard 

than with respect to identification, we nonetheless address the sufficiency of the evidence 

supporting Carr’s convictions. The State charged Carr as an accomplice. “Under the theory 

of accomplice liability, one who aids or assists in a crime is equally as culpable as the one 

who commits the actual crime.” Norvell v. State, 960 N.E.2d 165, 168 (Ind. Ct. App. 2011). 

Accomplice liability is a separate basis of liability for the crime charged, but there is no 

distinction between the criminal responsibility of a principal and an accomplice. Id.
8

In order to establish beyond a reasonable doubt that Carr committed the offense of 

robbery as a Class B felony, the State was required to prove that Carr, while armed with a 

deadly weapon, knowingly or intentionally took property from Roy by using or threatening

the use of force, or by putting Roy in fear. Ind. Code § 35-42-5-1. In order to establish 

beyond a reasonable doubt that Carr committed the offense of burglary as a Class B felony, 

the State was required to prove that Carr, while armed with a deadly weapon, broke and 

entered Roy’s apartment with the intent to commit a felony therein. Ind. Code § 35-43-2-1. 

In order to establish beyond a reasonable doubt that Carr committed the offense of attempted 

murder, the State was required to prove that Carr, while armed with a deadly weapon, 

intentionally fired the weapon in a manner likely to cause death or serious injury. Ind. Code 

§§ 35-41-5-1; 35-42-1-1. 

Here, the evidence most favorable to the jury’s verdict established that Carr, City, and 

Threat, while armed with weapons, kicked in the door of Roy’s apartment, fired shots at Roy, 

and took the keys to his car and his apartment. Therefore, there was sufficient evidence from 

which the jury could convict Carr of these offenses. 

Affirmed.

BARNES, J., and BRADFORD, J., concur.