Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 20A

- CR

- 580 | September 18, 2020 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 de fense of res judicata, collateral estoppel, or the law of the case

.
A TTORNEY FOR A PPELLANT Stanley L. Campbell Fort Wayne, Indiana A TTORNEY S FOR A PPELLEE Curtis T. Hill, Jr. Attorney General of Indiana Steven Hosler Deputy Attorney General Indianapolis, Indiana


### IN THE 

# COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA

Ronald E. Barrett , Ap pellant

- Defendant,

v. 

### State of Indiana , Appellee

- Plaintiff September 18, 2020 Court of Appeals Ca se No. 20A

- CR

- 580 Appeal from the Allen Superior Court The Honorable David M. Zent, Judge Trial Court Cause No. 02D06

- 1909

- F5

- 290

Crone, Judge .Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 20A

- CR

- 580 | September 18, 2020 Page 2 of 5 

### Case Summary
[1] Ronald E. Barrett appe als his conviction , following a bench trial, for level 5 felony domestic battery

. He challenges the sufficiency of the evidence supporting his conviction

. Finding the evidence suffic ient, we affirm. 

### Facts and Procedural History
[2] The facts most favorable to the conviction are as follows

. Sometime pr ior to the summer of 2 019, Barrett an d then seventeen
- year - old Z.R. en gaged in a sexual relationship that resulted in th e bir th of a daughter in July 2019

. Barrett had not

see n their daughter since her birth , so o n July 21, 2019, he picked up Z.R. and their daughter and drove to a rela tive’s house in Allen County wh ere they stayed a few hours. When they left, Z.R. and Barr ett began arguing. Z.R. accused Barrett of “run ning in and out of the house ” to use his phone and “ not spending time with [their daughter].” Tr. Vol. 2 at 33. She also became upse t because Barret t was te xtin g whi le he was driving. When Z.R. attempted t o grab Barrett’s cell phone, he threw it down an d then “back fisted” her in the nose two times. Id. at 34. Barrett pulled the car over , and Z.R. got out of the car with the baby . Barrett tried t o convinc e Z.R. to get back in th e car , but she refused , so Barrett drove off.

[3] Z.R. ’ s nose “hurt a lot” and was bleeding. Id. at 35. She started walking with her daughter and came across a couple on their porch who gave her a ride home. Z.R. called he r mother and gran dmother , who convinced her to call 911 and go to the hospital

. Fort Wayne Police Department Offi cer Jeremy ShelleyCourt of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 20A

- CR

- 580 | September 18, 2020 Page 3 of 5 responded to the 911 call and observed that Z.R. was “crying, fearful , ” and “afraid.” Id . at 58. Officer She ll e y also noted t hat Z. R. had “bru ising, redness, [and] s wollenness” arou nd her nose as well as a “small cut on her nose up in between he r eyes.” Id. at 59. When Z.R.’s grandmother saw her after the incident , she o bserved that Z.R. ’ s nose was swollen and “crooked.” Id

. at 54.

[4] Z.R.’s i njuries consisted of a f ractured nose a nd damage to both sides of her sinuses which required surgery a f ew weeks later. Id. 38, 67. After surgery, Z.R. described her pain as “ten plus.” Id. at 38. Z.R. complained of pai n for two to thr ee wee ks after th e incident. Id . at 50.

[5] On September 10, 2019, t he State charged Barrett w ith level 5 felony domestic battery . Barrett filed a waiver of a jury trial and requested a bench trial. He al so waived his ri ght to an attorney and chose to procee d p ro se. Fol lowing the bench trial, t he trial court found Barrett guilty as charged and imposed a five

year executed sentence. This appeal ensued

. 

### Discussion and Decision
[6] Barrett challenges the suffic iency of the evi dence supporting his conviction. In revi ewing a suf ficiency claim, we neither reweigh the evidence nor assess the credibility of witnesses. Cannon v. State , 142 N.E.3 d 1039, 1042 (Ind. Ct. App. 2020) . W e consider only the evidence most favorable to the judgment and the reasonable inferences supporting it. Id

. It is “not necessary that the e v idence ‘ov ercome every reasonable hypothesis of innocence.’” Drane v. State , 867 N.E.2d 144, 147 (Ind. 2007) (quoting Moore v. State , 652 N.E.2d 53, 55 (Ind.Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 20A

- CR

- 580 | September 18, 2020 Page 4 of 5 1995) ). “We will affir m if there is su bstantial evidence of probative value suc h that a re asonable trier of fact could have c oncluded the defendant was guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.” Bailey v. State , 907 N.E.2d 1003, 1005 (Ind. 2009)

.
[7] To convict Barrett of domestic battery as charged here , the State was required to prove beyond a reasonabl e doubt that he “knowingly or intentionally touche [ d ] a family or household member in a rude, insolent, or angr y manner.” Ind. Code § 35

- 42

- 2

- 1.3(a)(1)

. Although dome stic battery is general ly a class A misdeme anor, the offense becomes a level 5 felony if it resulted in s erious bodily injury to a family or household member. Ind. Code § 35

- 42

- 2

- 1.3(c)

. “Serious bodily injury” means bodily injury that creates a substantial risk of death or that causes: (1) serious permanent disfigurement; (2) u nconsciousne ss; (3) extreme pa in; (4) perma nent or protracted loss or impairment of th e function of a bodily member or organ; or (5) loss of a fetus. Ind. Code § 35

- 31.5

- 2

- 292

. A “family or household member” includes a n individual that “ is or was engaged in a sexual relat ionship w ith ” the de fendant

. Ind. Code § 35

- 31.5

- 2

- 128 (a)

.
[8] B a rrett first a sserts that the S tate failed to prove that he struck or touch ed Z. R. in a rude , insolent , or angry manner. However, Barrett concedes that Z.R. testified that he g ot angry wit h her and twice “ back

- fiste d ” her in the nose , Tr. V ol. 2 at 34, and he ackn owledges th at a conviction can be susta ined upon the uncorroborate d testimony of a single witness, even if that witness is the victim

. Bailey v. State , 979 N.E. 2d 1 33, 135 (Ind. 2 012)

. Barrett further acknowledges that “it is not the job of the Appellate Court to r e - weigh the evidence or judgeCourt of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 20A

- CR

- 580 | September 18, 2020 Page 5 of 5 the credibility of the witnesses.” App ellant ’ s Br. at 13

. Z .R. ’ s testimony al one is sufficient to prove that Barrett knowingly or intentio nall y touched her in a rude , insolent, or an gry manner.

[9] Next, Barrett challenge s the sufficiency of the evidence to establish that Z.R.

was a family or household member

. Z.R. and Barrett each testified that they believed that Barrett was t he father of Z .R. ’ s daughter , which clearly supports a finding that they are or were engaged in a sexual relatio nship. Barrett admits in his brief that “given the testimony of [Z.R.], and the concession of Barrett, there doesn’t seem to be much room for an argument tha t th e State failed to establish that [Z.R.] was a fami ly or household member.” Id

. at 1 4

. Accordingly, any

c hallenge to the suffici ency of the evidence in this regard is a nonstarter.

[10] Finally, Barrett asserts that the State f ailed to prove th at Z.R. suffered serious bodily injur y, and therefore his level 5 felony conviction should be reduced to a
c lass A misdemeanor . The evi dence established that Z.R. suffered a fractured

nose that required surgery, and she described her pain after surgery as a “ ten plus. ” Tr. Vol. 2 at 3 8 . We have little difficulty agreeing with the trial court that this qualifies as “ extreme pain ” within the mea ning of Ind i an a Cod e Section 35

- 31.5

- 2

- 292

. The State presente d sufficient evid ence to support Barrett ’ s convict ion for level 5 felony dome stic battery

.
[11] Affirmed

. Robb, J., and Brown, J., concur.