Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 18A-CR-1100 | November 20, 2018 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

Mark Small

Indianapolis, Indiana

ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE

Curtis T. Hill, Jr.

Attorney General of Indiana

Taylor C. Byrley

Angela N. Sanchez

J.T. Whitehead

Deputy Attorneys General

Indianapolis, Indiana

I N T H E

COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA

Gary Glaze,

Appellant-Defendant,

v.

State of Indiana,

Appellee-Plaintiff

November 20, 2018

Court of Appeals Case No.

18A-CR-1100

Appeal from the Montgomery 

Superior Court

The Honorable Heather Barajas, 

Judge

Trial Court Cause No.

54D01-1702-F5-339

Baker, Judge.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 18A-CR-1100 | November 20, 2018 Page 2 of 4

[1] Gary Glaze appeals his conviction for Level 6 Felony Battery Resulting in 

Moderate Bodily Injury,1 arguing that the evidence was insufficient to support 

his conviction. Finding that the evidence was sufficient, we affirm.

[2] Glaze is an inmate in the Montgomery County Jail who, at the time of the 

incident, was housed in the same pod as Nicholas Summers. Summers was 

eighteen years old and suffered from autism and a learning disability. On 

January 25, 2017, Glaze got angry when he learned that Summers had KoolAid. Glaze threw Summers’s mattress and told him to leave; Summers said no 

and put his mattress back on his bed. When Summers turned around, Glaze 

started to beat him, hitting his right eye multiple times with a closed fist. Glaze 

told Summers that if Summers reported the incident, Glaze would kill him. 

[3] Deputy Christian Brown received a report that a fight had occurred. When he 

saw Summers, Summers was sobbing; his right eye was bleeding and swollen 

shut, and there was a “pretty good gash” on his right eyelid. Tr. Vol. II p. 46. 

Summers’s injuries included lacerations and fractured bones.

[4] On February 7, 2017, Glaze was charged with Level 5 felony battery resulting 

in serious bodily injury and Level 6 felony battery resulting in moderate bodily 

injury. On August 8, 2017, Glaze entered into a plea agreement; on November 

1, 2017, the trial court rejected the plea agreement. A jury trial then took place 

on April 3, 2018, after which the jury found Glaze guilty of Level 6 felony 

 

1

Ind. Code § 35-42-2-1(e)(1).
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 18A-CR-1100 | November 20, 2018 Page 3 of 4

battery resulting in moderate bodily injury but not guilty of Level 5 felony 

battery resulting in serious bodily injury. Glaze admitted to being an habitual 

offender. During a May 1, 2018, sentencing hearing, the trial court sentenced 

Glaze to two years for his battery conviction and enhanced the sentence by four 

years for his status as an habitual offender, for an aggregate term of six years. 

Glaze now appeals.

[5] Glaze’s sole argument on appeal is that the evidence is insufficient to support 

his conviction. Specifically, he contends that Summers’s uncorroborated 

testimony was the only evidence that supported his conviction, thereby leaving 

open to reasonable doubt the identity of the assailant. When reviewing the 

sufficiency of the evidence to support a conviction, we must consider only the 

probative evidence and reasonable inferences supporting the conviction and will 

neither assess witness credibility nor reweigh the evidence. Drane v. State, 867 

N.E.2d 144, 146 (Ind. 2007). We will affirm unless no reasonable factfinder 

could find the elements of the crime proved beyond a reasonable doubt. Id. 

The uncorroborated testimony of one witness may be sufficient by itself to 

sustain a conviction on appeal. Toney v. State, 715 N.E.2d 367, 369 (Ind. 1999).

[6] To convict Glaze of Level 6 felony battery resulting in moderate bodily injury, 

the State was required to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Glaze 

knowingly or intentionally touched Summers in a rude, insolent, or angry 

manner that resulted in moderate bodily injury to Summers. I.C. § 35-42-2-

1(e)(1).
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 18A-CR-1100 | November 20, 2018 Page 4 of 4

[7] Summers testified that Glaze beat him up and caused his injuries. Specifically, 

he testified that Glaze was angry and shouted at him when Glaze discovered 

that Summers had Kool-Aid, that Glaze threw Summers’s mattress around, and 

that Glaze called him names and told him to leave the cell. Summers stated 

that Glaze then hit his right eye multiple times with a closed fist. He positively 

identified Glaze as his assailant in a written statement shortly after he was 

discharged from the hospital. Summers’s testimony alone was sufficient to 

satisfy the elements of the charge that the State was required to prove and to 

establish the identity of the assailant. Glaze’s attempt to cast doubt on the 

identity of Summers’s assailant is an attempt to reweigh the evidence and assess 

the credibility of the witnesses, which we may not do. The evidence was 

sufficient to support the conviction.

[8] The judgment of the trial court is affirmed. 

May, J., and Robb, J., concur.