Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 02A03-1407-CR-243 | April 8, 2015 Page 1 of 13

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

Thomas C. Allen

Fort Wayne, Indiana

ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE

Gregory F. Zoeller

Attorney General of Indiana

Richard C. Webster

Deputy Attorney General

Indianapolis, Indiana

I N T H E

COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA

Anthony C. Martin,

Appellant-Defendant,

v.

State of Indiana,

Appellee-Plaintiff.

April 8, 2015

Court of Appeals Case No.

02A03-1407-CR-243

Appeal from the 

Allen Superior Court

The Honorable Frances C. Gull, 

Judge

Cause No. 02D05-1307-FB-131

Kirsch, Judge.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 02A03-1407-CR-243 | April 8, 2015 Page 2 of 13

[1] Anthony C. Martin was convicted after a jury trial of robbery1 as a Class B 

felony and resisting law enforcement2 as a Class D felony and found to be a 

habitual offender.3 He was sentenced to an aggregate term of fifty years 

executed. Martin appeals and raises the following restated issues for our 

review:

I. Whether the State presented sufficient evidence to support his 

conviction for Class B felony robbery; and 

II. Whether his sentence is inappropriate in light of the nature of the 

offense and the character of the offender.

[2] We affirm.

Facts and Procedural History

[3] Around 12:45 a.m. on July 23, 2013, Tyler Zoda, Devon Stewart, and Cory 

Clemmer were sitting in the back of their truck eating pizza in the parking lot of 

Papa John’s Pizza near State Street and Maplecrest Road in Fort Wayne, 

Indiana. Zoda walked over to the Shell gas station and convenience store

(“Shell station”) at 6321 East State Street, which was located next door to the 

parking lot, to buy something to drink. After Zoda left, Stewart and Clemmer 

saw what they believed to be a red Ford Explorer driving quickly past. The 

vehicle was loud, and Stewart and Clemmer observed it drive past them several 

 

1

See Ind. Code § 35-42-5-1. We note that, effective July 1, 2014, a new version of the criminal statutes at 

issue in this case were enacted. Because Martin committed his crimes prior to July 1, 2014, we will apply the 

statutes in effect at the time he committed his crimes. 

2

See Ind. Code § 35-44.1-3-1.

3

See Ind. Code § 35-50-2-8.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 02A03-1407-CR-243 | April 8, 2015 Page 3 of 13

times and circle the Shell station. On their last observation of the Explorer, 

Stewart and Clemmer saw it near the car wash located behind the Shell station, 

driving rapidly away. As they watched, the Explorer hit a bump, causing the 

car wash door to open, and drove away from the area of Maplecrest Road. 

[4] At approximately the same time that night, a man, later identified as Frederick 

Freeman, entered the Shell station, wearing a dark hat, a white covering over 

his lower face, a dark shirt, and gloves, and pointed a silver handgun at the 

clerk, Dalvir Singh. Freeman told Singh to give him the money, and Singh 

opened the cash register, pulled out the money tray, containing approximately 

$300, and placed it on the counter. Freeman took the money tray, exited the 

Shell station, turned left, and ran toward Maplecrest Road. 

[5] While the robbery was occurring, Justin Douglas and some friends drove up to 

a gas pump outside the Shell station, and Douglas exited the car. As he 

approached the Shell station, he observed the robbery in progress. Freeman 

pointed the handgun at Douglas and told him to leave. Douglas went back to 

the car and told the driver to leave. As they drove away, Douglas called the 

police, reported the robbery, and gave a description of Freeman and the 

direction he traveled. Zoda, who was inside the shell station at the time of the 

robbery, also called 911 immediately after Freeman left. 

[6] At approximately 12:50 a.m., officers from the Fort Wayne Police Department

heard the dispatch regarding the armed robbery and responded to the Shell 

station. They spoke with the witnesses and viewed the surveillance video of the 
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 02A03-1407-CR-243 | April 8, 2015 Page 4 of 13

robbery. The surveillance video showed that Freeman came from the area of 

the car wash when he entered the Shell station, and when he left, he went back 

toward the car wash area. The officer radioed a description of Freeman, his 

direction of travel, and a description of the vehicle involved to other officers in 

the area.

[7] Fort Wayne Police Department Officer Robert Hollo (“Officer Hollo”) was 

patrolling in the area of State Street and Coliseum Boulevard at around 12:50 

a.m. in an unmarked vehicle when he received the radio broadcast of the 

robbery at the Shell station and heard that a red Ford Explorer had been 

observed circling the Shell station and was most likely the suspect vehicle. At 

1:01 a.m., Officer Hollo was at the intersection of Lake Avenue and Coliseum 

Boulevard and saw a red Ford Explorer matching the description of the vehicle 

involved in the robbery turning in front of him southbound on Coliseum 

Boulevard. Officer Hollo radioed dispatch and informed them of the license 

plate number of the Ford Explorer. Officer Hollo then began to follow the 

Explorer southbound on Coliseum Boulevard. As he did so, the Explorer 

began driving erratically, accelerating, weaving in and out of lanes, and passing 

traffic. 

[8] Officer Angie Reed arrived to assist Officer Hollo in a fully marked patrol 

vehicle and followed Officer Hollo’s vehicle. At that time, Officer Hollo 

activated his vehicle’s overhead lights to initiate a traffic stop of the Explorer. 

The Explorer made an immediate turn onto Reynolds Street at a high rate of 

speed, ignoring Officer Hollo’s attempt to stop it, and accelerated. Officer 
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 02A03-1407-CR-243 | April 8, 2015 Page 5 of 13

Hollo followed and activated his siren while pursuing the Explorer. The pursuit 

continued, reaching speeds of seventy to seventy-five miles per hour and lasted 

about two minutes, ending at Anthony Boulevard and Hayden Street, where 

the Explorer turned into a parking lot. As soon as the Explorer reached the 

parking lot, Freeman, who was the front seat passenger, attempted to exit the 

Explorer while it was still moving. Freeman was stuck in the seatbelt, and his 

foot dragged on the pavement, which caused his shoe and sock to come off. 

Freeman eventually freed himself, exited the Explorer, and fled on foot 

westbound toward Lillie Street. Officer Hollo radioed to other officers 

Freeman’s description and his direction of flight and stayed with the Explorer 

until other officers arrived. Officer Hollo ordered the driver, who was later 

identified as Martin, to exit the Explorer. Martin initially did not comply with 

the order, but eventually did so. When he did exit the Explorer, Martin was 

holding an object that he refused to drop, and he refused to comply with any 

other orders given by Officer Hollo. When Officer Hollo threatened to tase 

Martin and pulled his Taser from his belt, Martin dropped the object he was 

holding, which was later discovered to be a cell phone, and fled in the same 

direction as Freeman had. Martin was apprehended when he fell in the yard of 

a house. Freeman was subsequently discovered in a bush in front of a house on 

Lillie Street. Both men were taken in to custody.

[9] The police recovered $198 in cash and a striped shirt where Freeman had been 

hiding in the bush. Inside the Explorer, the police found two black baseball 

caps, two pairs of gloves, and a dark colored sweatshirt. They also recovered a 
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 02A03-1407-CR-243 | April 8, 2015 Page 6 of 13

black cell phone on the front passenger seat and a cell phone lying on the 

ground outside the driver’s door. Zoda and Singh were transported to the scene 

of the arrest; Zoda was unable to identify either Freeman or Martin, and Singh 

positively identified Freeman as the man who robbed the Shell station. The cell 

phones recovered from the scene were forensically examined, and it was 

discovered that there were twelve telephone calls and ten text messages between 

the two cell phones in the four days prior to the robbery. A text message 

between the phones on July 20, 2013 referred to a “lick,” which is common 

street slang for a robbery. Tr. at 429. 

[10] The State charged Martin with Class B felony robbery and Class D felony 

resisting law enforcement and alleged that he was a habitual offender. A 

bifurcated jury trial was held; in the first phase, the jury found Martin guilty of 

both robbery and resisting law enforcement, and in the second phase, Martin 

was found to be a habitual offender. The trial court sentenced him to twenty 

years for Class B felony robbery, enhanced by thirty years for the habitual 

offender finding, and three years for Class D felony resisting law enforcement, 

which was ordered to be served concurrently to the other sentence for an 

aggregate sentence of fifty years executed. Martin now appeals.

Discussion and Decision

I. Sufficient Evidence

[11] The deferential standard of review for sufficiency claims is well settled. This 

court will neither reweigh the evidence nor assess the credibility of witnesses.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 02A03-1407-CR-243 | April 8, 2015 Page 7 of 13

Tooley v. State, 911 N.E.2d 721, 724 (Ind. Ct. App. 2009), trans. denied; Elisea v. 

State, 777 N.E.2d 46, 48 (Ind. Ct. App. 2002). Rather, we will consider only 

the evidence and reasonable inferences most favorable to the trial court’s ruling. 

Elisea, 777 N.E.2d at 48. We will affirm unless no reasonable fact-finder could 

find the elements of the crime proven beyond a reasonable doubt. Tooley, 911 

N.E.2d at 724-25. Thus, if there is sufficient evidence of probative value to 

support the conclusion of the trier of fact, then the verdict will not be disturbed. 

Trimble v. State, 848 N.E.2d 278, 279 (Ind. 2006).

[12] Martin argues that the State failed to present sufficient evidence to support his 

conviction for Class B felony robbery. He specifically contends that the 

evidence did not support the conclusion that the Explorer stopped by the police 

was the same vehicle at the Shell station after the robbery because the vehicle 

that left the Shell station was not followed or observed throughout its exit path 

and the duration between the robbery and the vehicle pursuit of eleven minutes 

does not support that the Explorer was the same vehicle seen leaving the Shell 

station. Martin also claims that there was not even any evidence that the robber 

left the Shell station in a vehicle, so it was just speculation that the Explorer was 

the getaway vehicle. Martin further asserts that the lack of evidence found in 

the Explorer after the stop, particularly the absence of the cash tray, white 

handkerchief, and gun, demonstrates that the evidence presented was 

insufficient. Finally, he alleges that it was unclear how the witnesses were able 

to identify the robber since his face was covered, and therefore, such 

identifications were unreliable.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 02A03-1407-CR-243 | April 8, 2015 Page 8 of 13

[13] The State charged Martin with Class B felony robbery for acting as an 

accomplice to Freeman when he committed the robbery at the Shell station. 

Robbery is defined as: “[a] person who knowingly or intentionally takes 

property from another person or from the presence of another person . . . by 

using or threatening the use of force on any person; or . . . by putting any 

person in fear. Ind. Code § 35-42-5-1. The crime is a Class B felony if it 

committed while armed with a deadly weapon. I.C. § 35-42-5-1. “A person 

who knowingly or intentionally aids, induces, or causes another person to 

commit an offense commits that offense.” Ind. Code § 35-41-2-4. Accomplice 

liability is not established as a separate crime, but merely a separate basis of 

liability for the crime charged. Hampton v. State, 719 N.E.2d 803, 807 (Ind.

1999) (citing Ind. Code § 35-41-2-4). To be convicted of a crime under the 

theory of accomplice liability, it is not necessary that the defendant participate 

in every element of that crime. Ransom v. State, 850 N.E.2d 491, 496 (Ind. Ct.

App. 2006). In determining whether a person aided or was an accomplice to 

another in the commission of a crime, our Supreme Court has long considered 

the following four factors: “(1) presence at the scene of the crime; (2) 

companionship with another engaged in criminal activity; (3) failure to oppose

the crime; and (4) a defendant’s conduct before, during, and after the 

occurrence of the crime.” Norvell v. State, 960 N.E.2d 165, 168 (Ind. Ct. App. 

2011), trans. denied.

[14] The evidence presented at trial showed that, between 12:45 and 12:50 a.m. on 

July 23, 2013, Freeman robbed the Shell station while armed with a handgun. 
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 02A03-1407-CR-243 | April 8, 2015 Page 9 of 13

The surveillance video showed that he was wearing a dark hat, a white 

handkerchief covering his lower face, a dark shirt, and gloves. Immediately 

after Freeman left the Shell station, the robbery was reported to the police. A 

red Explorer was seen circling the Shell station prior to the robbery and was 

observed rapidly leaving the area and setting off the automatic door of the car 

wash. At about 12:50 a.m., information regarding the robbery and identifying 

the Explorer as the suspect vehicle was radioed to police officers in the area. 

Within ten minutes of the dispatch and fifteen minutes of the robbery, Officer 

Hollo observed a red Explorer coming from the direction of State Street and 

Maplecrest Road, where the Shell station was located. When Officer Hollo 

attempted to stop the Explorer, it began to flee as a high rate of speed and began 

a pursuit that reached speeds of up to seventy to seventy-five miles per hour. 

After the police were able to get the Explorer to stop, Freeman fled on foot, as 

did the driver, Martin. Both Freeman and Martin were caught, and Freeman 

was positively identified as the robber by Singh. Clothing similar to what the 

robber was wearing in the surveillance video was recovered from inside the 

Explorer, and close to $200 was found near Freeman when he was 

apprehended. 

[15] Based on this evidence, the jury could reasonably conclude that Martin drove 

Freeman to the Shell station in the Explorer, waited in the vehicle while 

Freeman committed the robbery, and then fled the area with Freeman after the 

crime was committed. Martin and Freeman were discovered together a short 

time after the crime was committed, and evidence of Martin driving Freeman 
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 02A03-1407-CR-243 | April 8, 2015 Page 10 of 13

around both before and after the robbery shows that Martin did not oppose the 

crime. Additionally, Martin’s conduct after the crime supports his liability as 

an accomplice to Freeman. When the police attempted to stop the Explorer, 

Martin led them on a high speed chase, and even after the Explorer was 

stopped, Martin continued to flee on foot. Evidence of flight may be considered 

as circumstantial evidence of consciousness of guilt. Clark v. State, 6 N.E.3d 

992, 999 (Ind. Ct. App. 2014). We, therefore, conclude that sufficient evidence 

was presented to support Martin’s conviction for Class B felony robbery as an 

accomplice. Martin’s arguments to the contrary are all requests for this court to 

reweigh the evidence and judge the credibility of the witnesses, which we 

cannot do. Tooley, 911 N.E.2d at 724.

II. Inappropriate Sentence

[16] Under Indiana Appellate Rule 7(B), “we may revise any sentence authorized by 

statute if we deem it to be inappropriate in light of the nature of the offense and 

the character of the offender.” Corbally v. State, 5 N.E.3d 463, 471 (Ind. Ct. 

App. 2014). The question under Appellate Rule 7(B) is not whether another 

sentence is more appropriate; rather, the question is whether the sentence 

imposed is inappropriate. King v. State, 894 N.E.2d 265, 268 (Ind. Ct. App.

2008). It is the defendant’s burden on appeal to persuade the reviewing court 

that the sentence imposed by the trial court is inappropriate. Chappell v. State,

966 N.E.2d 124, 133 (Ind. Ct. App. 2012), trans. denied.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 02A03-1407-CR-243 | April 8, 2015 Page 11 of 13

[17] Martin argues that his maximum sentence is inappropriate in light of the nature 

of the offense and the character of the offender. He asserts that maximum 

sentences should be reserved for the worst offenses and offenders. He contends 

that his lack of prior violent offenses in his criminal history demonstrate that he 

did not merit a maximum sentence and his lack of recent criminal offenses 

show that he is not such a danger to society that he should receive a maximum 

sentence. Martin also claims that his offense was a typical robbery and did not 

warrant such a lengthy sentence.

[18] Martin was found guilty of Class B felony robbery, which subjected him to 

imprisonment for a fixed term between six and twenty years, with the advisory 

sentence being ten years. Ind. Code § 35-50-2-5. He was also found to be a 

habitual offender, which sentence can be no less than the advisory sentence for 

the underlying offense, nor more than the three times the advisory sentence for 

the underlying offense, and cannot exceed thirty years. Ind. Code § 35-50-2-

8(h). Martin was also found guilty of Class D felony resisting law enforcement, 

which subjected him to imprisonment for a fixed term of between six months 

and three years, with an advisory sentence of one and a half years. Ind. Code § 

35-50-2-7. The trial court sentenced Martin to twenty years for his robbery 

conviction, enhanced by thirty years for the habitual offender finding, and three 

years for the resisting law enforcement conviction, which was order to be served 

concurrently, for a total sentence of fifty years. The trial court’s sentence was 

entirely within the range allowed by statute. 
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 02A03-1407-CR-243 | April 8, 2015 Page 12 of 13

[19] As to the nature of the offense, the evidence established that Martin was an 

accomplice in the armed robbery of the Shell station. Martin drove Freeman to 

the Shell station, waited in the vehicle while Freeman committed the robbery, 

and then drove Freeman away from the Shell station. Under Indiana Code 

section 35-41-2-4, as an accomplice, Martin was equally as culpable as Freeman 

in the commission of the crime. The robbery involved the use of a firearm, and 

Freeman pointed the hand gun at the store clerk and the customer that were 

present in the Shell station and threatened them. Further, during the 

commission of the offense, Martin fled from the police when they attempted to 

stop the Explorer and led the police on a high speed chase through the streets of 

Fort Wayne that reached speeds of seventy to seventy-five miles per hour. This 

flight from the police endangered other people and demonstrated a disregard for 

the safety of others.

[20] As to the character of the offender, Martin has an extensive criminal history 

that began in 1993 when he was a juvenile and continued to the present. 

Martin has four juvenile adjudications, and as an adult, he has seven 

misdemeanor convictions and three felony convictions. His felony convictions 

were for Class D felony receiving stolen property, Class C felony carrying a 

handgun without a license, and possession of a firearm by a convicted felon, 

which was a federal felony conviction. Martin had his probation revoked twice 

and was out on bond for pending charges of Class B felony rape, Class B felony 

criminal deviate conduct and being a habitual offender at the time he 

committed the present offenses. We conclude that, based on the nature of the 
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 02A03-1407-CR-243 | April 8, 2015 Page 13 of 13

offense and the character of the offender, Martin’s sentence was not 

inappropriate. 

[21] Affirmed.

Friedlander, J., and Crone, J., concur.