Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 02A03-1406-CR-197 | February 13, 2015 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

Michelle F. Kraus

Fort Wayne, Indiana

ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE

Gregory F. Zoeller

Attorney General of Indiana

Graham T. Youngs

Deputy Attorney General

 Indianapolis, Indiana

I N T H E

COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA

Robert Ledbetter, Jr.,

Appellant-Defendant,

v.

State of Indiana,

Appellee-Plaintiff

February 13, 2015

Court of Appeals Case No.

02A03-1406-CR-197

Appeal from the Allen Superior 

Court

The Honorable Frances C. Gull, 

Judge

Case No. 02D04-1306-FC-200 

Crone, Judge.

Case Summary

[1] A jury found Robert Ledbetter, Jr., guilty of class D felony theft. Ledbetter 

challenges the sufficiency of the evidence supporting his conviction, claiming 
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 02A03-1406-CR-197 | February 13, 2015 Page 2 of 5

that the State failed to present sufficient evidence that he formed the requisite 

intent under the theft statute. We affirm.

Facts and Procedural History

[2] The facts most favorable to the jury’s verdict are that around 11:00 p.m. on 

June 10, 2013, Officer Greg Anderson of the City of New Haven Police 

Department responded to a dispatch regarding a suspicious vehicle on a service 

road near Mills Auto Parts, a scrap auto parts store. Officer James Krueger 

arrived as backup. They walked to the end of the service road and found an 

unoccupied car parked on the side of a ditch opposite Mills Auto Parts. The car

was registered to Ledbetter. The officers observed that the back seats were 

folded down and plastic covered the back part of the car. 

[3] The officers hid in the nearby weeds for almost two hours. At that time, they 

heard people whispering and the clanking of metal. The officers then observed 

Ledbetter, Troy Lehr, and Pervis Hall carrying rims. The men had walked

without lights along a brushy area and through a creek to reach the car. As the 

men approached the vehicle, the trunk was opened, and an interior light came 

on. Officer Anderson heard one of the men ask how to turn off the light. The 

officers came out of hiding and arrested the men. Lehr told the officers that he 

was working with the FBI. Between two piles at the car and at the creek, the 

officers discovered eleven rims, four car batteries, and three alternators. 

[4] Officer Krueger contacted James Mills, the owner of Mills Auto Parts. Mills 

came to the location and identified the parts as his. Mills took Officer Krueger 
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 02A03-1406-CR-197 | February 13, 2015 Page 3 of 5

into his building, where they saw a broken window pane and an empty spot on 

the shelves where the rims had been. There were rims sitting outside the 

window. Mills did not know any of the men, nor had he given them permission 

to enter his property.

[5] The State charged Ledbetter with one count of class C felony burglary and one 

count of class D felony theft. Lehr was charged with one count of class C 

felony burglary, three counts of class C felony aiding burglary, and one count of 

class D felony theft, and he reached a plea agreement with the State. Pursuant 

to the agreement, Lehr was required to testify truthfully in any criminal 

proceeding brought by the State against other defendants in this matter in 

exchange for the State’s dismissal of five other charges. 

[6] At Ledbetter’s trial, Lehr testified as follows. Lehr had known Ledbetter for 

approximately one-and-a-half to two years. He went to Mills Auto Parts with 

the intention to steal scrap metal. He went alone on foot, found a window 

without glass, and entered. He started carrying rims outside to the edge of the 

property. He needed someone with a car to haul the scrap metal. According to 

Lehr, he called Ledbetter and “told him that I actually worked there and that 

my boss had given me permission to take the stuff and that I had permission to 

take the stuff out of there.” Tr. at 80. Ledbetter and Hall arrived together, and 

Lehr directed them to drive on the service road. Lehr told Ledbetter that they 

were moving the scrap metal at 11:00 p.m. because “when I got off work I 

didn’t have a ride and I’ve been stuck trying to find a ride.” Id. at 81. Upon 

arrest, Lehr told the officers that he was working for the FBI “because I was 
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 02A03-1406-CR-197 | February 13, 2015 Page 4 of 5

trying to get out of trouble.” Id. at 90. He testified that he would lie “for me to 

get out of trouble,” but not to get others out of trouble. Id. According to Lehr, 

he misled Ledbetter about having permission to enter the property and take the 

scrap metal.

[7] Neither Ledbetter nor Hall testified at trial. A jury found Ledbetter guilty of 

theft and not guilty of burglary.

Discussion and Decision

[8] Ledbetter argues that the State presented insufficient evidence to support his 

theft conviction. In reviewing a challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence, 

“we neither reweigh the evidence nor assess witness credibility, and will focus 

on the evidence most favorable to the verdict together with the reasonable 

inferences that may be drawn therefrom. We will affirm unless no reasonable 

factfinder could find the elements of the crime proved beyond a reasonable 

doubt.” Cooper v. State, 940 N.E.2d 1210, 1213 (Ind. Ct. App. 2011) (citation 

omitted), trans. denied.

[9] Indiana Code Section 35-43-4-2(a) provides in pertinent part that “[a] person 

who knowingly or intentionally exerts unauthorized control over property of 

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

or use, commits theft.” “Intent can be inferred from a defendant’s conduct and 

the natural and usual sequence to which such conduct logically and reasonably 

points. . . . Intent is a mental function; hence, absent a confession, it often must 
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 02A03-1406-CR-197 | February 13, 2015 Page 5 of 5

be proven by circumstantial evidence.” Knox v. State, 13 N.E.3d 899, 901 (Ind. 

Ct. App. 2014) (citations and quotation marks omitted). 

[10] Ledbetter asserts that there is unrebutted testimony that he acted under the 

belief that Lehr had permission to remove the property. This assertion is an 

invitation to reweigh the evidence and assess witness credibility, which we may 

not do. The jury was entitled to disbelieve Lehr’s testimony that Ledbetter

believed he had permission to remove property from Mills Auto Parts and to 

credit the significant circumstantial evidence tending to show that Ledbetter 

knowingly or intentionally exerted unauthorized control over the property. The 

evidence is sufficient to support Ledbetter’s conviction. 

[11] Affirmed.

Friedlander, J., and Kirsch, J., concur.