Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 49A05

- 1704

- CR

- 666 | N o v e m b e r 6 , 2 0 1 7 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.



### A TTORNEY FOR 

### A PPELLANT Barbara J. Simmons Oldenburg, Indiana 

### A TTORNEY S FOR 

### A PPELLEE 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 Ca se 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 | N o v e m b e r 6 , 2 0 1 7 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 Sco op 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 entr ance 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 t he 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 tha tCourt of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 49A05

- 1704

- CR

- 666 | N o v e m b e r 6 , 2 0 1 7 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 merchandi se 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.



# Disc ussion 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

- of

fact’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 “ k nowingly or intentionally exert[ed] unauthorized control over property of another person, with intent toCourt of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 49A05

- 1704

- CR

- 666 | N o v e m b e r 6 , 2 0 1 7 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 th en 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 Offi cer 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 a t 993

. The trial court weigh ed 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 sufficien t evidence to support Trumpey’s conviction for theft. Accordingly, we affirm his conviction.

[9] 

### Affirmed.

R i ley, J., and Pyle, J., concur

.