Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 75A05-1509-CR-1460 | December 2, 2016 Page 1 of 7

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

Timothy J. Lemon

Knox, Indiana

ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE

Gregory F. Zoeller

Attorney General of Indiana

Larry D. Allen

Deputy Attorney General

Indianapolis, Indiana

IN THE

COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA

Gary Chavez,

Appellant-Defendant,

v.

State of Indiana,

Appellee-Plaintiff.

December 2, 2016

Court of Appeals Case No.

75A05-1509-CR-1460

Appeal from the Starke Circuit

Court

The Honorable Kim Hall, Judge

Trial Court Cause No.

75C01-1406-MR-1

May, Judge.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 75A05-1509-CR-1460 | December 2, 2016 Page 2 of 7

[1] Gary Chavez appeals his conviction of murder.1 Chavez argues there was 

insufficient evidence to support his conviction. He also argues his sentence is 

inappropriate. We affirm.

Facts and Procedural History

[2] Chavez and Kim Chavez married in the early 1990s. After two to four years, 

the marriage began to fall apart. They lived separately several times during 

their marriage but never divorced. Kim dated other men during their marriage,

but Chavez did not date. In June of 2014, Kim was living with her boyfriend of 

one year.

[3] Chavez texted Kim on the morning of June 6, 2014, saying he was sick. Kim 

replied that she would call him after work. A few hours later, Chavez texted 

Kim that he could not breathe and thought he was dying. Kim called Chavez’s 

telephone, but he did not answer. Kim decided to drive to Chavez’s house to 

check on him. When she arrived, Kim left her purse and phone in her car and 

went into Chavez’s house. 

[4] Chavez viciously beat Kim and stabbed her multiple times, puncturing her 

carotid artery. Chavez continued to beat Kim and fractured her skull in 

multiple places. Chavez dragged Kim’s body outside, leaving visible blood 

 

1 Ind. Code § 35-42-1-1(1) (2007).
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 75A05-1509-CR-1460 | December 2, 2016 Page 3 of 7

stains. Chavez placed a grill cover over Kim’s body and put her next to his 

house. 

[5] Chavez went back into his house, grabbed a revolver and ammunition, and 

drove to a store’s parking lot. An employee of the store, Bryant Wagner, was 

about to leave for lunch and had his car door open. Chavez walked toward

Wagner while pointing the gun at him and told him to get back into the car. 

Chavez told Wagner that he was taking the car. Wagner slid into the passenger 

seat, and Chavez got into the driver’s seat. Chavez drove away from the store 

while continuously aiming the gun at Wagner. Chavez told Wagner he killed 

Kim and he was going to Valparaiso to kill Kim’s son. 

[6] When Wagner’s car became low on fuel, Chavez began to look for another 

vehicle to steal. Chavez followed an SUV into a residential driveway. After the 

SUV parked, Chavez got out of Wagner’s car, pointed his gun at the SUV’s 

driver, and stole the SUV. One of the victims called the police.

[7] Shortly after stealing the SUV, its engine began to smoke. Chavez pulled over 

and turned off the car. Two men started to walk towards Chavez to see if they 

could help. Chavez told them he had a gun, and he stole one of their trucks. 

The wife of one of the men called the police. A police chase ensued, and the 

police were able to stop the truck Chavez was driving by using a tire deflation 

device. Before police could detain Chavez, he shot himself in the face. 

Paramedics arrived and took Chavez to the hospital. 
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 75A05-1509-CR-1460 | December 2, 2016 Page 4 of 7

[8] The State charged Chavez with murder, Class A felony kidnapping,2 and Class 

B felony carjacking.3

 On July 31, 2015, the jury found Chavez guilty of all 

three charges. Chavez’s sentencing hearing occurred on August 27, 2015.

Kim’s family testified about their enormous grief following Kim’s death. The 

trial court found an aggravator in the violent and savage way Chavez beat and 

stabbed Kim. The court found mitigating factors in Chavez’s lack of criminal 

history and the hardship on his family. The trial court sentenced Chavez to 

sixty-five years for murder, thirty years for Class B felony kidnapping, and ten 

years for Class C felony carjacking. The trial court ordered Chavez to serve his 

sentences consecutively.

Discussion and Decision

I. Sufficiency of the Evidence

[9] “[A] reviewing court does not reweigh the evidence or judge the credibility of 

the witnesses.” McHenry v. State, 820 N.E.2d 124, 126 (Ind. 2005). “[A]ppellate 

courts must consider only the probative evidence and reasonable inferences 

supporting the verdict.” Id. If a reasonable fact-finder could find guilt beyond a 

reasonable doubt, reviewing courts must affirm. Id. 

 

2 Ind. Code § 35-42-3-2(a)(2) (1978).

3 Ind. Code § 35-45-5-2(2) (1993).
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 75A05-1509-CR-1460 | December 2, 2016 Page 5 of 7

[10] Chavez challenges only his conviction of murder. Because the State charged 

Chavez with an intentional killing, to obtain a conviction, it had to prove 

beyond a reasonable doubt that he intentionally killed Kim. See Ind. Code § 35-

42-1-1(1) (2007). “A person engages in conduct ‘intentionally’ if, when he 

engages in the conduct, it is his conscious objective to do so.” Ind. Code § 35-

41-2-2(a). Intent to kill can be inferred from the circumstances of the crime and 

type of the attack. Fuentes v. State, 10 N.E.3d 68, 75 (Ind. Ct. App. 2014), trans. 

denied. One might also infer the intent to kill from the use of a deadly weapon 

in the commission of the crime. Id. Harming an unconscious victim 

strengthens the inference of intent to kill. Zickefoose v. State, 388 N.E.2d 507, 

509 (Ind. 1979).

[11] Chavez asks us to reweigh the evidence, which we cannot do. See McHenry, 820 

N.E.2d at 126. Chavez argues that a reasonable fact-finder could not find 

beyond a reasonable doubt that he intentionally killed Kim. However, Chavez 

texted Kim, saying he felt ill. Kim tried to comfort him through texting, but he 

said he thought he was dying. Kim then attempted to call him, but Chavez did 

not answer his phone. Kim, worried about Chavez’s health, went to his house. 

Chavez then brutally beat Kim and stabbed her multiple times. Chavez caused 

fatal injuries to Kim by stabbing her, but he continued his brutal attack and

fractured her skull in multiple areas. This is sufficient evidence from which a 

finder of fact could infer Chavez intentionally killed Kim. See, e.g., Torres v. 

State, 673 N.E.2d 472, 473 (Ind. 1996) (holding there was sufficient evidence to 
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 75A05-1509-CR-1460 | December 2, 2016 Page 6 of 7

infer intent because defendant returned to the area of an altercation and stabbed 

the victim). 

II. Appropriateness of Sentence

[12] “The Court may revise a sentence authorized by statute if, after due 

consideration of the trial court’s decision, the Court finds that the sentence is 

inappropriate in light of the nature of the offense and the character of the 

offender.” Ind. App. Rule 7(b). “[A] defendant must persuade the appellate 

court that his or her sentence has met this inappropriateness standard of 

review.” Childress v. State, 848 N.E.2d 1073, 1080 (Ind. 2006). A court 

reviewing the sentence must give some deference to a trial court’s decision. 

Rutherford v. State, 866 N.E.2d 867, 873 (Ind. Ct. App. 2007). Whether a crime 

was “particularly egregious” can be considered when determining the 

appropriateness of a sentence. Rich v. State, 890 N.E.2d 44, 54 (Ind. Ct. App. 

2008), trans. denied.

[13] Chavez challenges only his sentence for murder. Murder has a sentencing 

range between forty-five and sixty-five years and an advisory sentence of fiftyfive years. Ind. Code § 35-50-2-3 (2007). The trial court sentenced Chavez to 

sixty-five years in prison for the murder. During the sentencing hearing, the 

judge noted Chavez 

planned to kill her. He lured the victim to his home by 

manipulating her sympathy and her concern for his well-being. 

Then, the Court finds the defendant brutally beat and stabbed the 

victim in order to inflict the maximum amount of pain so that 
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 75A05-1509-CR-1460 | December 2, 2016 Page 7 of 7

she would suffer a painful death. Then, the defendant hid the 

victim’s body, which demonstrates his criminal intent. 

(Sentencing Tr. at 43.)

[14] Chavez murdered Kim in a particularly heinous and egregious manner. 

Chavez planned the murder, took advantage of Kim’s sympathy for him, 

brutally inflicted painful and deadly injuries, and hid her body outside his house

in a grill cover. Chavez’s lack of criminal history and the effect of the 

sentencing on his family do not overcome his atrocious acts. We see nothing 

inappropriate about his receiving the maximum sentence for murder. See 

Rhoton v. State, 938 N.E.2d 1240, 1248 (Ind. Ct. App. 2010) (holding a sixty-five 

year sentence for murder was appropriate because the heinous nature of killing 

someone who was sleeping or lying down outweighed the mitigating factors of 

age, poor health, and previous kind acts to victim), trans. denied.

Conclusion

[15] There was sufficient evidence for a reasonable fact-finder to conclude beyond a 

reasonable doubt Chavez intentionally killed Kim. His sixty-five year sentence 

for murder is appropriate in light of the egregious way Chavez murdered Kim. 

Accordingly, we affirm.

[16] Affirmed.

Kirsch, J., and Crone, J., concur.