Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 49A05-1705-CR-1028 | October 30, 2017 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

Valerie K. Boots

Indianapolis, Indiana

ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE

Curtis T. Hill, Jr.

Attorney General of Indiana

Jesse R. Drum

Deputy Attorney General 

Indianapolis, Indiana

I N T H E

COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA

Ronald Graham,

Appellant-Defendant,

v.

State of Indiana,

Appellee-Plaintiff

October 30, 2017

Court of Appeals Case No.

49A05-1705-CR-1028

Appeal from the Marion Superior 

Court

The Honorable Mark Stoner, 

Judge

Trial Court Cause No.

49G06-1104-FA-26410

Altice, Judge.

Case Summary
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 49A05-1705-CR-1028 | October 30, 2017 Page 2 of 5

[1] Ronald Graham appeals following his convictions for class A felony attempted 

robbery and class A misdemeanor carrying a handgun without a license. On 

appeal, Graham argues that the State presented insufficient evidence to support 

his attempted robbery conviction.

[2] We affirm.

Facts & Procedural History

[3] On November 16, 2010, Cory Trotter agreed to meet Graham at an

Indianapolis gas station to sell Graham marijuana. When Trotter arrived at the 

gas station, he got into Graham’s car, bringing a bag containing five ounces of 

marijuana with him. Graham and Trotter spoke briefly before Graham reached 

behind his seat and pulled out a handgun. Graham pointed the gun at Trotter 

and said “[y]ou know what this is.” Transcipt at 44. Graham ordered Trotter 

not to move and told him “[t]his is how you going to get done. This is all part 

of the game.” Id. at 45. Graham then told Trotter to put his hands on the 

window, but instead of doing so, Trotter tried to grab the gun. A struggle 

ensued, during which Graham’s car rolled out of the gas station parking area 

and onto a grassy embankment. The struggle culminated in Graham shooting 

Trotter three times. Trotter then stumbled out of the car and ran into the gas 

station for help. Graham, who is partially paralyzed, got out of his car and 

limped away on his crutches, taking the gun with him. 

[4] As a result of these events, the State charged Graham with attempted murder 

and attempted robbery, both class A felonies, as well as class A misdemeanor 
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 49A05-1705-CR-1028 | October 30, 2017 Page 3 of 5

carrying a handgun without a license. A jury trial was held in September 2011, 

at the conclusion of which Graham was found guilty as charged. Graham was 

sentenced to thirty years, and his convictions were affirmed on direct appeal. 

Graham subsequently filed a petition for post-conviction relief, which was 

granted on February 19, 2016. As a result, Graham’s convictions were vacated.

[5] On March 20, 2017, the State retried Graham at a bench trial. At the 

conclusion of the evidence, the trial court acquitted Graham of attempted 

murder, but found him guilty of attempted robbery and carrying a handgun 

without a license. Graham was sentenced to twenty years executed, and this 

appeal ensued.

Discussion & Decision

[6] Graham argues that the State presented insufficient evidence to support his 

attempted robbery conviction. Specifically, he argues that Trotter’s testimony 

should be disregarded as incredibly dubious. The standard of review for 

sufficiency claims is well settled; this court will neither reweigh the evidence nor 

judge the credibility of witnesses. Jackson v. State, 925 N.E.2d 369, 375 (Ind. 

2010). Rather, we will consider only the evidence favorable to the judgment 

and all reasonable inferences therefrom. Alvies v. State, 905 N.E.2d 57, 61 (Ind. 

Ct. App. 2009). The uncorroborated testimony of a single witness is sufficient 

to support a conviction, even where the witness in question is the victim. Ferrell 

v. State, 565 N.E.2d 1070, 1072-73 (Ind. 1991). 
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 49A05-1705-CR-1028 | October 30, 2017 Page 4 of 5

[7] The doctrine of incredible dubiosity, however, allows a reviewing court to 

reevaluate the credibility of a witness when “a sole witness presents inherently 

improbable testimony and there is a complete lack of circumstantial evidence.” 

Fajardo v. State, 859 N.E.2d 1201, 1208 (Ind. 2007). “Application of this rule is 

rare and the standard to be applied is whether the testimony is so incredibly 

dubious or inherently improbable that no reasonable person could believe it.” 

Id. The rule does not apply when testimony is corroborated by additional 

witnesses or circumstantial evidence. Thompson v. State, 765 N.E.2d 1273, 1274

(Ind. 2002).

[8] In order to support the attempted robbery conviction, the State was required to 

prove that Graham took a substantial step toward intentionally taking property 

from Trotter by force, resulting in serious bodily injury to Trotter. See Ind. 

Code § 35-42-5-1 (2013); Ind. Code § 35-41-5-1. Trotter testified that he met

Graham at a location Graham had selected to carry out a drug deal, and that 

Graham had given him a false name. Trotter testified further that Graham did 

not purchase the marijuana as they had agreed, and instead produced a 

handgun, pointed it at Trotter, and ordered him not to move and to put his 

hands on the window. When Trotter tried to disarm Graham, Graham shot 

him three times. This evidence is plainly sufficient to support Graham’s 

attempted robbery conviction.

[9] Nevertheless, Graham argues that Trotter’s testimony is incredibly dubious, 

relying principally on Trotter’s admission that he lied to investigators several 

times about the reason for his meeting with Graham in an apparent attempt to 
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 49A05-1705-CR-1028 | October 30, 2017 Page 5 of 5

hide his own illegal activities. This is not a proper basis on which to invoke the 

incredible dubiosity rule. “The rule applies only when a witness contradicts 

herself or himself in a single statement or while testifying, and does not apply to 

conflicts between multiple statements.” Carter v. State, 31 N.E.3d 17, 31 (Ind. 

Ct. App. 2015), trans. denied. Graham’s remaining arguments are blatant 

requests to reweigh the evidence and judge the credibility of witnesses, which 

we will not indulge. There is nothing inherently improbable about Trotter’s 

testimony, and it was plainly sufficient to support Graham’s attempted robbery 

conviction. 

[10] Judgment affirmed.

[11] Baker, J. and Bailey, J., concur.