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

Ellen M. O’Connor

Marion County Public Defender Agency

Indianapolis, Indiana

ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE

Gregory F. Zoeller

Attorney General of Indiana

Richard C. Webster

Deputy Attorney General

Indianapolis, Indiana

IN THE

COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA

Jose Urbano,

Appellant-Defendant,

v.

State of Indiana,

Appellee-Plaintiff

August 25, 2015

Court of Appeals Case No.

49A05-1502-CR-45

Appeal from the Marion Superior 

Court

The Honorable Anne Flannelly, 

Magistrate

Trial Court Cause No.

49G04-1404-FB-019123

Bailey, Judge.

Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 49A05-1502-CR-45 | August 25, 2015 Page 1 of 5
Case Summary

[1] Jose Urbano (“Urbano”) appeals his conviction for Criminal Confinement, as a 

Class D felony.1

 He presents the sole issue of whether sufficient evidence 

supports the conviction. We affirm.

Facts and Procedural History

[2] In the spring of 2014, Jennifer Hernandez (“Hernandez”) ended her dating 

relationship with Urbano. On April 11, 2014, Hernandez returned to her 

apartment to find Urbano waiting for her. He was insistent that they should 

talk about resuming their relationship. They talked for a while, and Hernandez 

repeatedly told Urbano that the relationship would not be rekindled. She told 

Urbano to leave, but he would not do so.

[3] Hernandez told Urbano that she would leave the apartment if he would not. In 

response, Urbano informed Hernandez that he would not let her leave. He 

stood by the door and grabbed Hernandez as she attempted to leave. Urbano 

pushed her back onto the sofa and took away her cell phone and keys. When 

Hernandez was able to reach her bedroom and lock herself in, Urbano retrieved 

1 Ind. Code § 35-42-3-3. This offense is now a Level 6 felony. We refer to the version of the statute in effect 

at the time of Urbano’s crime. He does not challenge his conviction for Domestic Battery, as a Class A 

misdemeanor. I.C. § 35-42-2-1.3.

Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 49A05-1502-CR-45 | August 25, 2015 Page 2 of 5

 
a knife from the kitchen and pried the door open. He kept watch over 

Hernandez and she was not allowed to leave her apartment for fifteen hours. 

[4] Eventually, a maintenance worker arrived to repair a water leak and Urbano 

agreed that he could come in. However, he cautioned Hernandez against 

saying anything. When the door opened, Hernandez ran out. She obtained an 

emergency key from underneath her car and escaped to a friend’s house. There, 

she summoned police.

[5] Urbano was charged with Criminal Confinement as a Class B felony, and with 

Domestic Battery, as a Class A misdemeanor. At the conclusion of a bench 

trial, he was convicted of the lesser-included offense of Criminal Confinement, 

as a Class D felony, and Domestic Battery, as charged. He received a sentence 

of 545 days for the felony conviction, and one year for the misdemeanor 

conviction, to be served concurrently. This appeal ensued.

Discussion and Decision

[6] Indiana Code Section 35-42-3-3 provides that a person who knowingly or 

intentionally confines another person without the other person’s consent 

commits criminal confinement. Urbano argues that the evidence is insufficient 

to establish beyond a reasonable doubt that he confined Hernandez. He points 

to Hernandez’s testimony that she was able to do certain things such as take a 

shower or lie down to sleep.

Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 49A05-1502-CR-45 | August 25, 2015 Page 3 of 5
[7] The standard by which we review alleged insufficiency of the evidence to 

support a criminal conviction is well-settled. It is the fact-finder’s role, not that 

of appellate courts, to assess witness credibility and weigh the evidence to 

determine whether the evidence in a particular case sufficiently proves each 

element of an offense. Wright v. State, 828 N.E.2d 904, 906 (Ind. 2005). To 

preserve this structure, when appellate courts are confronted with conflicting 

evidence, they must consider it “most favorably to the trial court’s ruling.” Id. 

Appellate courts affirm the conviction unless “no reasonable fact-finder could

find the elements of the crime proven beyond a reasonable doubt.” Jenkins v. 

State, 726 N.E.2d 268, 270 (Ind. 2000) (emphasis added).

[8] The evidence most favorable to the verdict is that Urbano refused to permit 

Hernandez to leave her apartment for a fifteen-hour period of time. When 

Hernandez first expressed her desire to leave, Urbano grabbed her arms and 

pushed her back onto the sofa. Hernandez made repeated attempts to get to the 

door, but Urbano responded by blocking her path. Hernandez attempted to 

scream, but Urbano covered her mouth to stifle the screams. Urbano took 

possession of Hernandez’s cell phone. When Hernandez was able to retrieve 

the phone and attempt to use it, Urbano would grab her hand and prevent her 

communication. Eventually, Hernandez was able to get inside her bedroom 

and lock the door. As she tried to escape out a bedroom window, she saw 

Urbano enter the room. He had gained entry by prying into the door lock with 

a knife. Urbano ordered Hernandez to go back to the living room, which she 

did. If Hernandez moved from one room to another, Urbano followed her. 

Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 49A05-1502-CR-45 | August 25, 2015 Page 4 of 5
Hernandez eventually escaped under the pretext that she was merely allowing a 

maintenance worker into the apartment.

[9] From this evidence, a reasonable fact-finder could conclude beyond a 

reasonable doubt that Urbano knowingly or intentionally confined Hernandez 

without her consent. 

Conclusion

[10] The evidence is sufficient to permit the trial court as fact-finder to conclude 

beyond a reasonable doubt that Urbano committed Criminal Confinement.

[11] Affirmed. 

[12] Baker, J., and Mathias, J., concur.

Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 49A05-1502-CR-45 | August 25, 2015 Page 5 of 5