Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 49A05-1704-CR-666 | November 6, 2017 Page 1 of 4

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

Barbara J. Simmons

Oldenburg, Indiana

ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE

Curtis T. Hill, Jr.

Attorney General of Indiana

Angela N. Sanchez

Supervising Deputy Attorney 

General

Indianapolis, Indiana

I N T H E

COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA

Dillon Trumpey,

Appellant-Defendant,

v.

State of Indiana,

Appellee-Plaintiff.

November 6, 2017

Court of Appeals Case No.

49A05-1704-CR-666

Appeal from the Marion Superior 

Court 

The Honorable Linda Brown, 

Judge

Trial Court Cause No.

49G10-1610-CM-39980

Robb, Judge.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 49A05-1704-CR-666 | November 6, 2017 Page 2 of 4

Case Summary and Issue

[1] Following a bench trial, Dillon Trumpey was convicted of theft, a Class A 

misdemeanor. On appeal, Trumpey challenges whether the State presented 

sufficient evidence to support his conviction. Concluding the State presented 

sufficient evidence, we affirm.

Facts and Procedural History

[2] On October 10, 2016, Eric Brumlee was working as a store clerk at Inside 

Scoop Candies and Gifts at Castleton Square Mall. Brumlee was the only 

employee in the store. While he was working at the cash register, Brumlee 

observed a male customer, later identified as Trumpey, take several stuffed 

animals from a display near the entrance of the store. Specifically, Brumlee saw 

Trumpey take a large husky stuffed animal and leave the store without paying. 

Trumpey was accompanied by a female and Brumlee observed them walk 

quickly toward Sears. Brumlee called the police and described the perpetrator 

as a tall, white male with blonde hair and wearing a gray beany.

[3] Following Brumlee’s report, Officer Marcus Riley of the Indianapolis 

Metropolitan Police Department was dispatched to Castleton Square Mall. 

Officer Riley found Trumpey inside Sears and detained him. Trumpey 

possessed a stuffed animal and his female companion had the large husky 

stuffed animal. Officer Riley escorted Trumpey and his companion back to 

Inside Scoop Candies and Gifts where Brumlee identified them as the pair that 
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 49A05-1704-CR-666 | November 6, 2017 Page 3 of 4

stole merchandise from the store. Trumpey admitted to Officer Riley that he 

stole the merchandise, but later recanted his confession.

[4] The State charged Trumpey with theft, a Class A misdemeanor. At trial, 

Trumpey testified and denied stealing merchandise or ever being present at 

Inside Scoop Candies and Gifts. Trumpey also stated a friend who was with 

his group at the mall “looks just like [Trumpey] . . . .” Transcript at 41. The 

trial court found Trumpey guilty as charged. Trumpey now appeals.

Discussion and Decision

I. Standard of Review

[5] Our standard of review in claims of insufficient evidence is well settled: we 

neither reweigh the evidence nor judge the credibility of the witnesses, and we 

consider only the evidence most favorable to the verdict and the reasonable 

inferences that can be drawn from this evidence. Knight v. State, 42 N.E.3d 990, 

993 (Ind. Ct. App. 2015). We will not disturb the verdict if substantial evidence 

of probative value supports it. Id. As an appellate court, we respect the trier-offact’s exclusive province to weigh conflicting evidence. Id.

II. Sufficiency of the Evidence

[6] Trumpey argues the State failed to present sufficient evidence to prove beyond a 

reasonable doubt that Trumpey committed theft. To convict Trumpey of theft, 

the State was required to prove that Trumpey “knowingly or intentionally 

exert[ed] unauthorized control over property of another person, with intent to 
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 49A05-1704-CR-666 | November 6, 2017 Page 4 of 4

deprive the other person of any part of its value or use . . . .” Ind. Code § 35-43-

4-2(a) (2014).

[7] The State’s evidence established that Brumlee witnessed Trumpey and a female 

companion in Inside Scoop Candies and Gifts. While working behind the cash 

register, Brumlee observed Trumpey take merchandise, specifically a large 

husky stuffed animal, and leave without paying. The police then apprehended 

Trumpey, who fit the description given to them by Brumlee. Trumpey’s 

companion possessed a large husky stuffed animal. Brumlee later identified 

Trumpey as the person who stole the stuffed animals from the store and 

Trumpey admitted to Officer Riley that he stole them. Trumpey’s argument 

that we should credit his testimony that he was in “the wrong place at the 

wrong time with the wrong person,” tr. at 11, is merely a request to reweigh the 

evidence, which we cannot do. Knight, 42 N.E.3d at 993. The trial court 

weighed the evidence and credited Brumlee’s testimony that he witnessed 

Trumpey take merchandise without paying for it. This is sufficient evidence to 

support Trumpey’s conviction for theft.

Conclusion

[8] The State presented sufficient evidence to support Trumpey’s conviction for 

theft. Accordingly, we affirm his conviction.

[9] Affirmed.

Riley, J., and Pyle, J., concur.