Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 4 6 A04

- 1703

- CR

- 629 | September 26, 2017 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.
A TTORNEY FOR A PPELLANT Jennifer L. Koethe La Porte , Indiana A TTORNEYS FOR A PPELLEE I NDIANA A TTORNEY G ENERAL Curtis T. Hill, Jr. Attorney General of Indiana Henry A. Flores, Jr. Deputy Attorney General Indianapolis, Indiana


### I N T H E 

# COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA

Derrick David Wolford , Appellant

- Defendant ,
v. 

### State of Indiana, Appellee

- Plaintiff September 26, 2017 Court of Appeals Ca se No. 46A04

- 1703

- CR

- 629 Appeal from the La Porte Superior Court The Honorable Greta Sterling Friedman, Judge Trial Court Cause No. 46D04

- 1512

- CM

- 3211



### Bradford , Judge .Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 4 6 A04

- 1703

- CR

- 629 | September 26, 2017 Page 2 of 4 

# Case Summary
[1] On August 24, 2015, Appellant

- Defendant Derrick Wolford went to the home of his ex

- girlfriend Katie Bohle to retri eve some belongings. At some point, Wolford asked Bohle for a cigarette, and, when Bohle left to retrieve one, Wolford was left alone with her purse. Later that day, Bohle noticed that $720 (which represented the proceeds of the paycheck she had cashed t hat morning) was missing from her purse. Wolford was the only person other that Bohle who had had access to the purse before the money was discovered to be missing. The State charged Wolford with Class A misdemeanor theft, and the trial court found him g uilty as charged and sentenced him to 180 days of incarceration. Wolford contends that the State produced insufficient evidence to sustain his theft conviction. Because we disagree, w e affirm.



# Facts and Procedural History
[2] On August 24, 2015, Bohle cashed her $720 pay check from her job as a certified

nur sing assistant and placed the money in her purse

. Thereafter, Wolford , whose romantic relationship with Bohle had recently ended, arrived at Bohle’s residence in La Porte County to retrieve som e of his belongings

. Wolford was aware of Bohle’s schedule and when she was paid and cashed her pay check

.
[3] While Wolford was gathering his belongings, he asked Bohle for a cigarette , which required her to retrieve one from her vehicle outside. While Boh le retrieved her cigarettes , Wolford was alone with her purse . Wolford smokedCourt of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 4 6 A04

- 1703

- CR

- 629 | September 26, 2017 Page 3 of 4

the cigarette, loaded up hi s belongings, and left. Later that day , Bohle went shopping and discovered that her $720 was gone

. Bohle testified that Wolford was th e only one alone with her purse and that he did not have permission to rummage throu gh her purse or take her money.

[4] On December 16, 2015, the State charged Wolford with theft, a Class A misdemeanor

. On December 21, 2016, Wolford was tried before the bench, and o n January 6, 2017, the trial court found Wolford guilty as charged

. On February 17, 2017, the trial court sentenced Wolford to 180 days executed in jail and ordered him to pay restitution in the amount of $720

.



# Discussion and Decision Sufficiency of the E vidence
[5] Wolford contends that the State failed to produce sufficient evidence to sustain his theft conviction. When reviewing the sufficiency of the evidence, we neither weigh the evidence nor resolve questions of credibility. Jordan v. State , 656 N.E.2d 816, 817 (Ind. 1995). We look only to the evidence of probative value and the reasonable inferences to be drawn therefrom which support the verdict. Id . If from that viewpoint there is evidence of probative value from which a reasonable trier of fact c ould conclude that the defendant was guilty beyond a reasonable doubt, we will affirm the conviction. Spangler v. State , 607 N.E.2d 720, 724 (Ind. 1993).

[6] Indiana Code section 35

- 73

- 4

- 2(a) provides, in part, that “[a] person who knowingly or intentionall y exerts unauthorized control over property of anotherCourt of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 4 6 A04

- 1703

- CR

- 629 | September 26, 2017 Page 4 of 4

person, with intent to deprive the other person of any part of its value or use, commits theft, a Class A misdemeanor.” Here, Bohle testified that she cashed her paycheck and placed the money in her p urse and that Wolford (who knew when Bohle got paid) was the only other person who had had access to the purse before the cash was discovered to be missing. Bohle’s testimony is sufficient to support an inference that Wolford stole the $720 from Bohle’s p urse. Wolford points to his testimony that he did not take the money, he never saw the purse, and his recent breakup with Bohle provided her with a motive to lie. The trial court was under no obligation to credit this evidence and did not. Wolford’s arg ument is nothing more than an invitation to reweigh the evidence, which we will not do. See Jordan , 656 N.E.2d at 817

.
[7] The judgment of the trial court is affirmed.
May, J., and Barnes, J., concur.