Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 19A-CR-2344 | July 16, 2020 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.

ATTORNEY FOR APPELLANT

Ann M Sutton

Indianapolis, IN

ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE

Curtis T. Hill, Jr. 

Attorney General of Indiana

Matthew B. MacKenzie

Deputy Attorney General

Indianapolis, Indiana

IN THE

COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA

Melva Wright,

Appellant-Defendant,

v.

State of Indiana,

Appellee-Plaintiff

July 16, 2020

Court of Appeals Case No.

19A-CR-2344

Appeal from the Marion Superior 

Court

The Honorable Charnette D. 

Garner, Judge

The Honorable Ronnie Huerta, 

Magistrate 

Trial Court Cause No.

49G09-1810-F6-33847

Altice, Judge.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 19A-CR-2344 | July 16, 2020 Page 2 of 7

Case Summary

[1] Melva Wright appeals her conviction of theft as a Level 6 felony. She raises two 

issues on appeal:

I. Whether the State presented sufficient evidence to convict her of

theft; and 

II. Whether her 270-day sentence is inappropriate in light of the nature

of the offense and her character. 

[2] We affirm.

Facts & Procedural History

[3] Sometime in August 2018, Wright began living at Herbert Smith’s residence. 

The two had not seen each other in many years, having originally met at church 

where Smith was an assistant pastor. After seeing Wright on the street and 

learning that she was homeless, Smith offered her a place to stay. Wright lived 

with Smith for about three months and during that time he bought her food and 

clothing but did not give her a key. 

[4] Smith owned a Samsung smart watch, which he received as part of a package 

deal with his phone and tablet. He occasionally wore the watch, but most of the 

time it remained on a computer stand next to his bed. One day he noticed the 

watch was missing, so he questioned Wright. She denied taking it, but after 
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 19A-CR-2344 | July 16, 2020 Page 3 of 7

repeated questioning, Wright admitted to pawning it. Smith had not given 

Wright permission to do anything with the watch. 

[5] Wright took Smith to Cash America where she had pawned the watch. After 

locating his watch, Smith was unable to obtain the watch from Cash America 

until law enforcement arrived on scene and made a report. An investigation 

revealed that the watch matched the serial number of Smith’s watch. 

Furthermore, identification information and fingerprint copies taken when the 

watch was pawned matched those of the seller, Wright. 

[6] On October 3, 2018, the State charged Wright with Class A misdemeanor theft 

and Level 6 felony theft. After a jury trial, Wright was convicted of a Class A 

misdemeanor theft, which was enhanced to Level 6 felony theft based on prior

convictions of theft and robbery. The court then sentenced Wright to 270 days

in jail. She now appeals. 

Discussion & Decision

I. Sufficiency of Evidence

[7] Wright argues that the State failed to show sufficient evidence to convict her of 

theft. The standard of review for such a claim is well settled. A reviewing court 

must consider only the probative evidence and reasonable inferences supporting 

the conviction and should not assess witness credibility or reweigh the evidence. 

Drane v. State, 867 N.E.2d 144, 146 (Ind. 2007). The evidence is sufficient if an 
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 19A-CR-2344 | July 16, 2020 Page 4 of 7

inference may be reasonably drawn from it to support the conviction. Id. at 147. 

Further, a conviction should be upheld unless, “no reasonable fact-finder could 

find the elements of the crime proven beyond a reasonable doubt.” Id. at 146-

47.

[8] In order to prove a conviction for theft, the State was required to show, beyond 

a reasonable doubt, that Wright knowingly or intentionally exerted 

unauthorized control over Smith’s Samsung smart watch with the intent to 

deprive Smith of any part of its value or use. See Ind. Code § 35-43-4-2(a). 

[9] Wright contends that there is insufficient evidence to prove that she pawned the 

watch without Smith’s approval. However, she does not dispute that she 

pawned the watch, as evidenced by her identification and fingerprint obtained 

from the pawn store. She claims only that Smith’s testimony is insufficient to

show that she did not have permission to pawn the watch. 

[10] It is not this court’s responsibility to reweigh evidence or assess witness 

credibility, specifically Smith’s credibility. Here, Smith testified that he did not

give Wright permission to have his watch or do anything with it, expressly

testifying that she did not have permission to pawn the watch. Smith housed 

Wright because she was in need of a place to stay and provided her with food 

and clothing. Upon discovering that his watch had disappeared, Smith 

questioned Wright as to its whereabouts and she admitted to pawning it. At no 
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 19A-CR-2344 | July 16, 2020 Page 5 of 7

point did Smith give Wright permission to do so. For these reasons, we 

conclude that the State presented sufficient evidence to convict Wright of theft.

II. Sentencing

[11] Wright contends that her 270-day sentence that is to be executed in jail is 

inappropriate. Sentencing is principally a discretionary function, and therefore

the trial court’s judgement should receive considerable deference. Cardwell v. 

State, 895 N.E.2d 1219, 1223 (Ind. 2008). Pursuant to Indiana Appellate Rule 

7(b), an appellate court may revise a sentence if it finds that the sentence is 

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

offender.” “The question is not whether another sentence is more appropriate; 

rather, the question is whether the sentence imposed is inappropriate.” Fonner v. 

State, 876 N.E.2d 340, 344 (Ind. Ct. App. 2007). When considering 

appropriateness, there are myriad of factors to take into account and ultimately 

there is no right answer in determining a proper sentence. Cardwell, 895 N.E.2d 

at 1224. Furthermore, the defendant has the burden of persuading us that his or 

her sentence is inappropriate. Childress v. State, 848 N.E.2d 1073, 1080 (Ind. 

2006). 

[12] The starting point for an appropriateness analysis is to look at the advisory 

sentence the legislature has selected for the crime committed and compare it to 

the sentence imposed. Connor v. State, 58 N.E.3d 215, 220 (Ind. Ct. App. 2020).

The sentencing range for a Level 6 felony is between six months and two and a 
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 19A-CR-2344 | July 16, 2020 Page 6 of 7

half years, with an advisory sentence of one year. Ind. Code. § 35-50-2-7(b).

Wright acknowledges that her sentence is below the advisory sentence but 

argues that it was still too harsh given the petty nature of the offense and the 

steps she is actively taking to improve her character. 

[13] We begin by acknowledging that the nature of the offense is not particularly 

egregious, except that she chose to steal from someone who considered her a 

friend and had been helping her in a time of need. By doing so, she violated 

Smith’s trust and the sanctity of his home. She also denied taking it when Smith 

confronted her about it, only admitting it after his repeated questioning. We 

find nothing about the nature of the offense that warrants a reduction in her 

sentence.

[14] When considering the character of the offender, we look at “substantial 

virtuous traits or persistent examples of good character.” Moon v. State, 110 

N.E.3d 1156, 1162 (Ind. Ct. App. 2018). Further, “one relevant fact is the 

defendant’s criminal history.” Denham v. State, 142 N.E.3d 514, 517 (Ind. Ct. 

App. 2020). 

[15] The record shows that Wright has an extensive criminal history. She has at least 

eight prior misdemeanor convictions, and five prior felony convictions. These 

crimes include theft, prostitution, resisting law enforcement, robbery, and 

arson. While many of her convictions are dated, we observe that her most 

recent was for a theft committed less than a year before the current incident and 
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 19A-CR-2344 | July 16, 2020 Page 7 of 7

shortly after her release from serving a lengthy sentence for Class B felony 

arson. 

[16] Wright asserts that her efforts in the months leading up to the sentencing to 

improve herself, taking classes at Ivy Tech and applying for housing, reflect 

highly of her character. While we commend her on her recent efforts to 

improve her character, her past convictions cannot be ignored. In light of her 

criminal history and her failure to appear in front of the trial court on multiple 

occasions, Wright’s less than advisory sentence is not inappropriate.

[17] Wright has failed to show that her sentence of 270 days in jail is inappropriate

in light of the nature of the offense and her character. 

[18] Judgment affirmed.

Bailey, J. and Crone, J., concur.