Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 18A-CR-2145 | May 29, 2019 Page 1 of 5

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

Donald J. Berger

Law Office of Donald J. Berger

South Bend, Indiana

ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE

Curtis T. Hill, Jr. 

Attorney General of Indiana

Monika Prekopa Talbot

Supervising Deputy Attorney 

General

Indianapolis, Indiana

I N T H E

COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA

Tyrone Sims,

Appellant-Defendant,

v.

State of Indiana,

Appellee-Plaintiff.

May 29, 2019

Court of Appeals Case No.

18A-CR-2145

Appeal from the 

St. Joseph Superior Court

The Honorable 

Jeffrey L. Sanford, Judge

Trial Court Cause No.

71D03-1801-F5-12

Kirsch, Judge.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 18A-CR-2145 | May 29, 2019 Page 2 of 5

[1] Tyrone Sims (“Sims”) was convicted after a jury trial of theft1 as a Class A 

misdemeanor and burglary2 as a Level 5 felony. Sims now appeals, claiming 

that the evidence was not sufficient to support his convictions.

[2] We affirm.

Facts and Procedural History

[3] On Sunday, January 21, 2018, around 1:30 a.m., Mark Vanator (“Vanator”), 

the owner of a local automotive business (“the Store”), was notified by his 

security company that the alarm had been triggered by someone entering the 

Store. Tr. Vol. 2 at 72. Vanator drove to the Store. Id. 

[4] Roughly twelve minutes later, Vanator arrived at the Store and found that glass 

from a window was broken. Id. Vanator dialed 911. Id. When the police 

arrived, the officers asked Vanator to come into the Store to determine if 

anything was missing. Id. at 73. He went inside and noticed a jack, which was 

usually by the now-broken window, was missing. Id. The missing jack was 

blue with a yellow handle and weighed roughly seventy pounds. Id. 

[5] On the same day around 3:00 a.m., South Bend Police Department Officer Paul 

Daley (“Officer Daley”) heard an alarm go off while he was patrolling an 

industrial area just north of the Store. Id. at 104. While investigating the alarm, 

 

1

See Ind. Code § 35-43-4-2(a).

2

See Ind. Code § 35-43-2-1.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 18A-CR-2145 | May 29, 2019 Page 3 of 5

Officer Daley saw Sims with a cart by an industrial building. Id. at 105. Officer 

Daley did not expect to see anyone in the area since it was the middle of the 

night and the weather was so cold. Id. at 106. Officer Daley went over to Sims 

to make sure he was okay, and he saw a blue jack with a yellow handle in the 

cart. Id. at 109. Vanator later identified the jack Sims had in his cart as the jack 

that was missing from the Store. Id. at 78. 

[6] The State charged Sims with Level 5 felony burglary and Class A misdemeanor 

theft. Appellant’s App. Vol. 2 at 10. A jury trial began on August 23, 2018 and 

concluded on August 24, 2018. Tr. Vol. 2 at 1. The jury found Sims guilty of 

both charges. The trial court then sentenced Sims to three years for the burglary 

and one year for the theft and ordered that the sentences would be served 

concurrently. Appellant’s App. Vol. 2 at 43. Sims now appeals. 

Discussion and Decision

[7] Sims argues that there was insufficient evidence to support his convictions for 

Level 5 felony burglary and Class A misdemeanor theft. When we review the 

sufficiency of evidence, we do not determine the credibility of witnesses or 

reweigh the evidence. Boggs v. State, 928 N.E. 2d 855, 864 (Ind. Ct. App. 2010), 

trans. denied. We consider only the evidence most favorable to the verdict and 

the reasonable inferences that can be drawn from this evidence. Fuentes v. State, 

10 N.E.3d 68, 75 (Ind. Ct. App. 2014), trans. denied. We will not disturb the 

jury’s verdict if there is substantial evidence of probative value to support it. Id.

Circumstantial evidence can sustain a conviction. Baltimore v. State, 878 N.E. 
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 18A-CR-2145 | May 29, 2019 Page 4 of 5

2d 253, 258 (Ind. Ct. App. 2007), trans. denied. Circumstantial evidence does 

not need to exclude every reasonable hypothesis of innocence and can sustain a 

conviction if an inference may reasonably be drawn from the evidence to 

support the judgment. Id. We will affirm unless no reasonable fact-finder could 

find the elements of the crime proven beyond a reasonable doubt. Delagrange v. 

State, 5 N.E.3d 354, 356 (Ind. 2014). 

[8] Sims contends that the State failed to prove that he committed the crimes of 

burglary and theft. He states that there was no evidence to directly tie him to 

the burglary and argues that he was never identified as the person who broke 

and entered the Store, noting that there were no “signs of glass or abrasions” on 

his person that would connect him to the break-in. Appellant’s Br. at 8. Sims 

also argues that there is no evidence of theft since Sims was merely standing 

next to the jack when Officer Daley saw him, and Sims was not exerting control 

over the jack. To sustain a conviction for Class A misdemeanor theft, the State 

must prove that Sims knowingly or intentionally executed control over the 

property of another with the intent to deprive the other person of any part of its 

value. Ind. Code § 34-43-4-2(a). While the unexplained possession of recently 

stolen property standing alone is not sufficient to support a conviction for theft, 

such possession is to be considered along with the other evidence in the case.

Holloway v. State, 983 N.E.2d 1175, 1179 (Ind. Ct. App. 2013). In order to 

sustain a conviction for Level 5 felony burglary, the State must prove beyond a 

reasonable doubt that Sims broke into and entered a building of another with 

the intent to commit theft. Ind. Code § 35-43-2-1.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 18A-CR-2145 | May 29, 2019 Page 5 of 5

[9] A conviction of burglary or theft may be sustained by circumstantial evidence. 

Williams v. State, 714 N.E.2d 671, 673 (Ind. Ct. App. 1999). The unexplained 

possession of recently stolen property supports an inference of guilt of theft of 

that property. See Jelks v. State, 720 N.E.2d 1171, 1174 (Ind. Ct. App. 1999); 

Williams, supra, 714 N.E.2d at 673. It is also well established that such 

unexplained possession of recently stolen property will support a burglary 

conviction so long as there is evidence that there was in fact a burglary 

committed. Steele v. State, 475 N.E.2d 1149 (Ind 1985).

[10] Here, a rational trier of fact could find Sims guilty of burglary and theft beyond 

a reasonable doubt. Around 1:30 a.m. on January 21, 2018, an alarm sounded

at the Store and a blue and yellow jack was missing. Approximately an hour 

later, Sims was found by Officer Daley a short distance from the Store. Sims 

had in his possession the jack that had recently been stolen from the Store.

[11] A reasonable fact-finder could determine that Sims had committed burglary and 

theft. The entrances to the Store were locked and undamaged. To obtain the 

jack, Sims had to break the glass and enter through the window. The glass was 

broken at the Store, and a reasonable fact-finder could conclude that Sims broke 

the window to enter the Store and steal the jack.

[12] The evidence was sufficient to support Sims’ theft and burglary convictions. 

[13] Affirmed.

Vaidik, C.J., and Altice, J., concur.