Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 49A04-1411-CR-536 |July 8, 2015 Page 1 of 8

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.

ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLANT

Ruth Johnson

Marion County Public Defender Agency

Appellate Division

Indianapolis, Indiana

Timothy J. Burns 

Indianapolis, 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

Anteis Robinson,

Appellant-Defendant,

v.

State of Indiana,

Appellee-Plaintiff.

July 8, 2015

Court of Appeals Case No.

49A04-1411-CR-536

Appeal from the 

Marion Superior Court

The Honorable David E. Cook, 

Judge Pro Tempore

Cause No. 49G07-1404-CM-17912

Kirsch, Judge.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 49A04-1411-CR-536 |July 8, 2015 Page 2 of 8

[1] Anteis Robinson was convicted after a bench trial of resisting law enforcement1

as a Class A misdemeanor. He appeals and raises the following restated issue 

for our review: whether the State presented sufficient evidence to prove his 

identity as the person who fled from the police and to support his conviction for 

resisting law enforcement. 

[2] We affirm.

Facts and Procedural History

[3] At approximately 3:00 a.m., on April 7, 2014, Officer Marc Klonne of the 

Indianapolis Metropolitan Police Department was patrolling on East 30th 

Street in Indianapolis, Indiana. Approaching the intersection of 30th Street 

with Euclid Avenue, Officer Klonne observed a dark-colored SUV turn from 

30th Street onto Euclid Avenue without using a turn signal and proceed 

northbound on Euclid Avenue. Officer Klonne also turned northbound behind 

the SUV, and the SUV immediately sped up. At the intersection of Euclid 

Avenue and 31st Street, the SUV turned westbound onto 31st Street, again 

without using a turn signal. The SUV continued on 31st Street for one block 

and then turned southbound on Colorado Avenue. At that time, Officer 

Klonne turned on his emergency lights to initiate a traffic stop of the SUV; he 

 

1

See Ind. Code § 35-44.1-3-1(a)(3). We note that, effective July 1, 2014, a new version of this criminal statute 

was enacted. Because Robinson committed his crime prior to July 1, 2014, we will apply the statute in effect 

at the time he committed his crime. 
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 49A04-1411-CR-536 |July 8, 2015 Page 3 of 8

also turned on his spotlight and illuminated the SUV. The SUV slowed and 

began to roll to a stop. At that time, Officer Klonne saw a man, later identified 

as Robinson, exit from the front passenger window of the SUV and flee 

westbound between the houses. 

[4] Officer Klonne began to pursue Robinson on foot. The officer was not able to 

see Robinson’s face, but was able to see him during the pursuit and observe his 

build. During the pursuit, Officer Klonne radioed a description of Robinson as 

a black male, wearing a grey sweatshirt and black pants, in his late teens or 

early twenties, between six feet and six feet two inches tall, and with dreadlocks 

pulled back. The officer also radioed for additional police units to establish a 

perimeter in the area, which the units in the area established immediately. 

Officer Klonne was able to pursue Robinson westbound between the houses 

and observed Robinson turn around the corner of a house and run southbound 

behind the house. Officer Klonne yelled at Robinson to stop and identified 

himself as a police officer, but Robinson continued to flee. When Officer 

Klonne reached the corner of the house, he had to stop for safety reasons to 

clear the corner of the house. After doing so, he lost sight of Robinson. At that 

time, he radioed to ensure the perimeter was secure and for a K-9 unit to assist 

in the pursuit.

[5] While waiting for the K-9 unit, Officer Klonne returned to his police vehicle, 

ran the license plate number for the SUV, and discovered that the SUV was a 

stolen vehicle. Officer Greg Davis and his K-9 unit arrived within minutes and 

began tracking Robinson from the SUV, westbound between the houses and 
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 49A04-1411-CR-536 |July 8, 2015 Page 4 of 8

following the path of the earlier pursuit. At the corner of the house where 

Officer Klonne had lost sight of Robinson, the K-9 turned and followed 

Robinson’s path southbound for several houses to the house at 3038 Colorado 

Avenue. The K-9 alerted at the back of the house, where a screen had been 

removed from a window and was lying on the ground. The officer looked in 

the kitchen window and observed Robinson; Officer Davis asked Officer 

Klonne if Robinson looked like the man who fled from the SUV, and Officer 

Klonne replied that he did. Officer Davis then took the K-9 around the area of 

the house, but the K-9 did not pick up any other scents and returned to the 

house. 

[6] Officer Klonne and another officer knocked on the front door of the house, and 

Officer Davis took his K-9 unit to the back door to ensure no one fled through 

the rear of the house. The female homeowner answered the door, and after the 

officers explained why they were there, she gave them permission to enter the 

house and search for Robinson. The officers searched several rooms of the 

house and then proceeded to the back bedroom where the homeowner’s two 

daughters were located. This was the room where the screen had been removed 

from the window. The officers opened the closet door and found Robinson 

sitting on top of a pile of clothes, wearing only a pair of shorts and talking on a 

cell phone. Officer Klonne positively identified Robinson as the man who the 

officer pursued after observing the man flee from the SUV. When the officers 

asked for Robinson’s identification, he gave them a name and social security 

number, which information was found to be false when checked by the officers. 
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 49A04-1411-CR-536 |July 8, 2015 Page 5 of 8

Robinson then gave the officers his real name, and when it was checked, the 

officers discovered Robinson had an outstanding warrant. Robinson was 

arrested on that warrant and for the crimes of auto theft and resisting law 

enforcement.

[7] The State charged Robinson with Class A misdemeanor resisting law 

enforcement. At the conclusion of the bench trial, he was found guilty as 

charged. The trial court sentenced him to 365 days with 361 days suspended. 

Robinson now appeals.

Discussion and Decision

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

court will neither reweigh the evidence nor assess the credibility of witnesses.

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).

[9] Robinson argues that the State failed to present sufficient evidence to support 

his conviction for resisting law enforcement. He specifically asserts that the 

State presented insufficient evidence of identification of Robinson as the man 
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 49A04-1411-CR-536 |July 8, 2015 Page 6 of 8

who exited the SUV and fled from Officer Klonne. Robinson contends that, 

because Officer Klonne never saw the face of the man who fled from him, the 

identification of Robinson as the suspect is ambiguous and not sufficient to 

sustain his conviction.

[10] Robinson does not argue that the evidence was insufficient to prove all of the 

necessary elements of the crime of resisting law enforcement; he only argues 

that the evidence identifying him as the man who fled from the police was not 

sufficient. Identification testimony need not necessarily be unequivocal to 

sustain a conviction. Holloway v. State, 983 N.E.2d 1175, 1178 (Ind. Ct. App. 

2013). Elements of offenses and identity may be established entirely by 

circumstantial evidence and the logical inferences drawn therefrom. Id. (citing

Bustamante v. State, 557 N.E.2d 1313, 1317 (Ind. 1990)). As with other 

sufficiency matters, we will not weigh the evidence or resolve questions of 

credibility when determining whether the identification evidence is sufficient to 

sustain a conviction. Id. Rather, we examine the evidence and the reasonable 

inferences therefrom that support the conviction. Id. 

Where circumstantial evidence is used to establish guilt, the question 

for the reviewing court is whether reasonable minds could reach the 

inferences drawn by the jury; if so, there is sufficient evidence. 

Furthermore, we need not determine whether the circumstantial 

evidence is adequate to overcome every reasonable hypothesis of 

innocence, but rather whether inferences may be reasonably drawn 

from that evidence which supports the verdict beyond a reasonable 

doubt.

Klaff v. State, 884 N.E.2d 272, 274-75 (Ind. Ct. App. 2008) (internal quotations 

and citations omitted).
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 49A04-1411-CR-536 |July 8, 2015 Page 7 of 8

[11] In the present case, the evidence presented showed that, immediately after 

Robinson fled from the SUV, Officer Klonne began to pursue him, and 

although the officer could not see Robinson’s face, he was able to observe his 

build. Officer Klonne was also able to observe that Robinson was wearing a 

grey sweatshirt and black pants, was in his late teens or early twenties, and was 

between six feet and six feet two inches in height. When Robinson turned the 

corner of a house, Officer Klonne lost sight of him, but immediately called for a 

K-9 unit to continue the pursuit. Within five minutes, the K-9 unit began 

tracking the path that Robinson took from the SUV. When the K-9 unit turned 

the corner where Officer Klonne had lost sight of Robinson, the K-9 tracked a 

couple of houses farther south and went to the back window of the house at 

3038 Colorado Avenue, where a screen had been removed from a window. As 

the K-9 neared the house, he lifted his nose in the air, which indicated that he 

smelled the actual suspect and not just the scent on the ground. When the K-9 

was taken to search the area around the house, he found no other scent and 

returned to the house four different times. The K-9 also alerted to the side of 

the house where the screen had been removed. The total time from the start of 

the K-9’s tracking until it alerted on the house was about one minute.

[12] When the officers looked into the kitchen window, Officer Klonne saw a man 

inside that looked like the man he had observed during the pursuit. Officers 

entered into the house and found Robinson hiding in a closet. Officer Klonne 

positively identified Robinson as the man who fled from the SUV and who 

ignored the officer’s commands to stop. When the police asked Robinson for 
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 49A04-1411-CR-536 |July 8, 2015 Page 8 of 8

identification, he gave them a false name. Although the majority of the 

evidence presented was circumstantial in nature, we conclude that it was 

sufficient to support the inference that Robinson was the man who fled from the 

SUV and ignored Officer Klonne’s commands to stop after identifying himself 

as a police officer. The evidence was sufficient to support Robinson’s 

conviction for resisting law enforcement.

[13] Affirmed.

Vaidik, C.J., and Bradford, J., concur.