Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 46A04-1703-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.

ATTORNEY FOR APPELLANT

Jennifer L. Koethe

La Porte, Indiana

ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE INDIANA 

ATTORNEY GENERAL

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 Case 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 46A04-1703-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 retrieve 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 that 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 guilty 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, we affirm. 

Facts and Procedural History

[2] On August 24, 2015, Bohle cashed her $720 paycheck from her job as a certified 

nursing 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 some of his belongings. Wolford was 

aware of Bohle’s schedule and when she was paid and cashed her paycheck. 

[3] While Wolford was gathering his belongings, he asked Bohle for a cigarette,

which required her to retrieve one from her vehicle outside. While Bohle 

retrieved her cigarettes, Wolford was alone with her purse. Wolford smoked 
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 46A04-1703-CR-629| September 26, 2017 Page 3 of 4

the cigarette, loaded up his belongings, and left. Later that day, Bohle went 

shopping and discovered that her $720 was gone. Bohle testified that Wolford

was the only one alone with her purse and that he did not have permission to 

rummage through 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 on 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 Evidence

[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 could 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 intentionally exerts unauthorized control over property of another 
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 46A04-1703-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 purse 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 

purse. 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 argument 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.