Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 19A-CR-710 | February 19, 2020 Page 1 of 6

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

Amy Noe Dudas

Richmond, Indiana

ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE

Curtis T. Hill, Jr.

Attorney General of Indiana

Justin F. Roebel

Supervising Deputy Attorney 

General

Tiffany A. McCoy

Deputy Attorney General

Indianapolis, Indiana

I N T H E

COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA

Daryl Barthalow,

Appellant-Defendant,

v.

State of Indiana,

Appellee-Plaintiff.

February 19, 2020

Court of Appeals Case No.

19A-CR-710

Appeal from the Wayne Circuit 

Court

The Honorable David A. Kolger, 

Judge

Trial Court Cause No.

89C01-1711-F2-20

Mathias, Judge.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 19A-CR-710 | February 19, 2020 Page 2 of 6

[1] Daryl Barthalow (“Barthalow”) was convicted after a jury trial in Wayne 

Circuit Court of Level 3 felony burglary. Barthalow appeals and argues that the 

State presented insufficient evidence to support his conviction. 

[2] We affirm. 

Facts and Procedural History

[3] At the time relevant to this appeal, Joshua Mays (“Joshua”) had been dating 

Barthalow’s sister, Ashley. The couple broke up in early November 2017. Also 

at this time, Barthalow was dating Tessa Sittloh (“Tessa”), whose cousin, 

Crimson Pitcher (“Crimson”) lived with Carry Sester (“Carry”) in one side of a 

duplex in Richmond, Indiana. 

[4] On November 10, 2017, Crimson, who was friends with Joshua, invited him 

and her cousin Tessa over to the duplex to drink. Tessa declined and decided to 

spend the evening with her boyfriend, Barthalow. That evening, Tessa dropped 

Joshua and Crimson off at the duplex. Inside the duplex, Joshua, Crimson, and 

Carry sat on a bed, drinking alcohol and listening to music. When Tessa went 

to Barthalow’s home, she told him and his brother Jonathon that Crimson was 

hanging out with Joshua. Barthalow and Jonathon started talking and then left 

the home. 

[5] Shortly thereafter, Crimson, Carry, and Joshua were still listening on the bed 

when they heard a loud bang and footsteps coming up the stairs to the second 

floor, where they were located. Barthalow and Jonathon, neither of whom had 

permission to enter the home, then burst into the room. Barthalow knocked 
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 19A-CR-710 | February 19, 2020 Page 3 of 6

Joshua off the bed, and then he and Jonathan beat and kicked Joshua “all over 

the room.” Tr. Vol. 1, p. 157. As he attacked Joshua, Barthalow said to him 

“this is for hittin’ my sister” and “you want to hit my sister.” Id. at 158; Tr. Vol. 

2, p. 4. Joshua did not resist but curled up into a fetal position to protect 

himself. Barthalow grabbed Joshua and attempted to throw him out the secondstory window, but Carry intervened and tried to pull Barthalow off of Joshua. 

Barthalow pushed Carry against the wall and told her that what he was doing 

was “none of [her] f’n business.” Tr. Vol. 1, p. 158. Carry then attempted to call 

911, but Barthalow knocked the phone out of her hand. Carry’s sister, who 

lived on the other side of the duplex, arrived and informed Barthalow and 

Jonathon that she was calling the police. Barthalow and his brother then ceased 

their attack and left. 

[6] Barthalow and Jonathon returned to Barthalow’s home, where Tessa noticed 

that the brothers were agitated. Barthalow and Jonathon washed their hands, as 

Barthalow’s hands were bloody and injured. Tessa overheard Jonathon tell 

someone on the phone that “it was taken care of.” Tr. Vol. 2, p. 21. 

[7] As a result of the attack, Joshua suffered multiple injuries, including facial 

contusions, a laceration on his ribcage, and a swollen ear. Joshua was “pretty 

bloody” and in “a lot of pain.” Tr. Vol. 1, pp. 159, 212. Joshua’s pain was 

severe enough that he was prescribed an opiate analgesic.

[8] On November 11, 2017, the State charged Barthalow with Level 2 felony 

burglary resulting in serious bodily injury and Level 5 felony battery resulting in 
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 19A-CR-710 | February 19, 2020 Page 4 of 6

serious bodily injury. On October 15, 2018, the State added an additional 

charge of Level 3 felony burglary resulting in bodily injury and moved to 

dismiss the original charges. The trial court granted this motion, leaving only 

the charge of Level 3 felony burglary. A jury trial was held on February 12–14, 

2019, at the conclusion of which the jury found Barthalow guilty as charged. 

On March 5, 2019, the trial court sentenced Barthalow to fourteen years of 

incarceration. Barthalow now appeals.1

Standard of Review

[9] Our standard of review on challenges to the sufficiency of the evidence is well 

settled. We neither reweigh the evidence nor judge the credibility of the 

witnesses, and we respect the jury’s exclusive province to weigh conflicting 

evidence. Miller v. State, 106 N.E.3d 1067, 1073 (Ind. Ct. App. 2018), trans. 

denied. We must consider only the probative evidence and reasonable inferences 

supporting the jury’s verdict. Id. That is, we must affirm if the probative 

evidence and reasonable inferences drawn from this evidence could have 

allowed a reasonable trier of fact to find the defendant guilty beyond a 

reasonable doubt. Id.

[10] To convict Barthalow of Level 3 felony burglary, the State was required to 

prove that he “did break and enter the dwelling of Crimson Pitcher and/or 

1 Barthalow’s brother Jonathon was convicted of Level 3 felony battery as a result of his participation in the 

attack and sentenced to ten years of incarceration. See Barthalow v. State, 119 N.E.3d 204, 208 (Ind. Ct. App. 

2019). 
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 19A-CR-710 | February 19, 2020 Page 5 of 6

Carry Sester . . . with intent to commit a felony or theft in it, which resulted in 

bodily injury to Joshua Mays[.]” Appellant’s App. p. 43; see also Ind. Code § 35-

43-2-1(2) (defining Level 3 felony burglary as “break[ing] and enter[ing] the 

building or structure of another person, with intent to commit a felony or theft 

in it . . . result[ing] in bodily injury to any person other than a defendant[.]”). 

Barthalow argues that the State failed to prove that, when he broke and entered 

the duplex, his intent was to batter Joshua.2

[11] “Burglars rarely announce their intentions at the moment of entry[.]” Baker v. 

State, 968 N.E.2d 227, 229–30 (Ind. 2012) (quoting Gilliam v. State, 508 N.E.2d 

1270, 1270 (Ind. 1988)). Thus, “a burglar’s intent to commit a specific felony at 

the time of the breaking and entering ‘may be inferred from the 

circumstances.’” Id. at 230 (citing Gilliam, 508 N.E.2d at 1270). Indeed, 

“[c]ircumstantial evidence alone is sufficient to sustain a burglary conviction.” 

Id. (citation omitted). “Evidence of intent ‘need not be insurmountable,’ but 

there must be a ‘specific fact that provides a solid basis to support a reasonable 

inference that the defendant had the specific intent to commit a felony[.]’” Id.

(quoting Gilliam, 508 N.E.2d at 1271; Freshwater v. State, 853 N.E.2d 941, 944 

(Ind. 2006)). 

2 We note that, absent other circumstances, battery is a Class B misdemeanor. Ind. Code § 35-42-2-1(c). 

Battery is a Class A misdemeanor if it results in bodily injury to any other person, id. at § 1(d), a Level 6 

felony if it results in moderate bodily injury to any other person, id. at § 1(e), and a Level 5 felony if it results 

in serious bodily injury to any other person. Id. at § 1(g). 
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 19A-CR-710 | February 19, 2020 Page 6 of 6

[12] Considering only the evidence favorable to the jury’s verdict, and the 

reasonable inferences that can be drawn from this evidence, we conclude that 

the jury could reasonably conclude that, when Barthalow broke and entered the 

duplex, his intent was to commit the felony of battery resulting in at least 

moderate bodily injury. Specifically, there was evidence that Joshua and 

Barthalow’s sister had recently ended their relationship. When Barthalow and 

his brother broke into the duplex, they immediately began to attack Joshua. 

And as Barthalow attacked Joshua, he stated that Joshua had either hit 

Barthalow’s sister or wanted to hit her. 

Conclusion

[13] The jury could reasonably conclude that, when he broke and entered the 

duplex, Barthalow had the intent to batter Joshua resulting in moderate bodily 

injury, which is a felony. See Barthalow v. State, 119 N.E.3d 204, 210 (Ind. Ct. 

App. 2019) (holding that there was evidence sufficient to establish Jonathon 

Barthalow’s intent to cause moderate to serious bodily injury to Joshua where 

Jonathan and his brother broke into the duplex, went upstairs, attacked Joshua, 

and attempted to throw him out the window). We therefore affirm the 

judgment of the trial court. 

[14] Affirmed. 

Kirsch, J., and Bailey, J., concur.