Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 64A03-1710-CR-2324 | May 29, 2018 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 defense of res judicata, collateral 

estoppel, or the law of the case.

ATTORNEY FOR APPELLANT

Bryan M. Truitt

Valparaiso, Indiana

ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE

Curtis T. Hill, Jr.

Attorney General of Indiana

Lyubov Gore

Deputy Attorney General

Indianapolis, Indiana

I N T H E

COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA

Garland P. Jeffers, Jr.,

Appellant-Defendant,

v.

State of Indiana,

Appellee-Plaintiff.

May 29, 2018

Court of Appeals Case No.

64A03-1710-CR-2324

Appeal from the Porter Superior 

Court

The Honorable William E. Alexa, 

Judge

Trial Court Cause No.

64D02-1402-FB-1595

Najam, Judge.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 64A03-1710-CR-2324 | May 29, 2018 Page 2 of 5

Statement of the Case

[1] Garland P. Jeffers, Jr. appeals his conviction for robbery, as a Class B felony, 

following a jury trial. Jeffers raises a single issue for our review, namely, 

whether the State presented sufficient evidence to support his conviction. We 

affirm.

Facts and Procedural History

[2] On July 28, 2013, three black males robbed Low Bob’s cigarette shop in 

Portage. Amy Halford and Jordan Breezley, two store employees, and 

Kristopher Kremke, a customer, were in the store at the time. Soon after the 

robbery, Breezley triggered an alarm, and police arrived shortly thereafter.

[3] Kremke had observed the robbers’ vehicle as a “blue or green” Dodge with a 

Wisconsin license plate number of 640TZE. Tr. Vol. 2 at 192. One of the 

responding officers ran that license plate number and identified the vehicle as 

belonging to a rental car company in Wisconsin. The officer contacted the 

company, and the company stated that Jeffers had recently rented the vehicle.

[4] Halford and Breezley described one of the robbers as about 5’10” and heavier 

set with dark, heavy clothes. Halford got a “clear look at his face.” Id. at 116.

Later, she identified him from a recent Facebook photograph as Jeffers.

[5] The State arrested Jeffers and charged him with robbery, as a Class B felony. 

Jeffers represented himself at his ensuing jury trial. At that trial, Halford 

testified and identified Jeffers as the robber whose face she had seen and added 
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 64A03-1710-CR-2324 | May 29, 2018 Page 3 of 5

that she could identify him “without a doubt or contradiction.” Id. at 146. She 

also testified that she recognized Jeffers’ “distinctive voice.” Id. at 147. 

[6] While incarcerated and awaiting his trial, Jeffers shared a jail cell with Reginald 

Edwards. During that time, Jeffers told Edwards that “he was involved” in the 

robbery at Low Bob’s shop. Tr. Vol. 3 at 11. Jeffers stated that he “and a 

couple more guys” had committed the robbery and that they had taken 

“cigarettes and some money.” Id. Edwards testified to those facts at Jeffers’ 

jury trial.

[7] The jury found Jeffers’ guilty as charged. The trial court entered its judgment of 

conviction against Jeffers and sentenced him accordingly. This appeal ensued.

Discussion and Decision

[8] On appeal, Jeffers argues that the State failed to present sufficient evidence that 

he was one of the three robbers of Low Bob’s store in July of 2013. Our 

standard of review on a claim of insufficient evidence is well settled:

For a sufficiency of the evidence claim, we look only at the 

probative evidence and reasonable inferences supporting the 

verdict. Drane v. State, 867 N.E.2d 144, 146 (Ind. 2007). We do 

not assess the credibility of witnesses or reweigh the evidence. Id. 

We will affirm the conviction unless no reasonable fact-finder 

could find the elements of the crime proven beyond a reasonable 

doubt. Id.

Love v. State, 73 N.E.3d 693, 696 (Ind. 2017). The identity of the defendant as 

the perpetrator of the charged offense is of course an essential element of the 
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 64A03-1710-CR-2324 | May 29, 2018 Page 4 of 5

offense. E.g., Groves v. State, 479 N.E.2d 626, 628 (Ind. Ct. App. 1985). And, 

here, Jeffers’ challenge goes only to the State’s proof of his identity rather than 

to any of the statutory elements of robbery.

[9] The State presented sufficient evidence of Jeffers’ identity as one of the three 

robbers of Low Bob’s store in July of 2013. Halford, an employee of the store 

who was present during the robbery, got a “clear look” at Jeffers’ face during 

the robbery, Tr. Vol. 2 at 116; she identified him in a recent Facebook 

photograph to police during their investigation of the robbery; and she 

identified him in court for the jury, noting that she had no doubt in doing so. 

She further testified that she recognized Jeffers’ distinctive voice. 

[10] The State’s evidence to the jury further included Jeffers’ admissions to 

Edwards, his cellmate. Those admissions included not just Jeffers’ 

participation in the robbery but an acknowledgement that he had engaged in the 

robbery with two other men and that they had stolen cash and cigarettes. And 

the State additionally demonstrated that the Wisconsin vehicle Jeffers had 

rented shortly before the robbery was used in the commission of the robbery.

[11] Jeffers’ arguments on appeal are merely requests for this court to disregard the 

evidence most favorable to the verdict and, instead, reweigh the evidence in a 

manner more favorable to Jeffers. We reject Jeffers’ argument on appeal and 

will not reweigh the evidence. The State presented sufficient evidence that 

Jeffers was one of the three robbers, and we affirm his conviction.

[12] Affirmed.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 64A03-1710-CR-2324 | May 29, 2018 Page 5 of 5

Robb, J., and Altice, J., concur.