Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 18A-CR-64 | June 14, 2018 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

Timothy J. Burns

Indianapolis, Indiana

ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE

Curtis T. Hill, Jr.

Attorney General of Indiana

J.T. Whitehead

Deputy Attorney General

Indianapolis, Indiana

I N T H E

COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA

Tenaya Lee,

Appellant-Defendant,

v.

State of Indiana,

Appellee-Plaintiff

June 14, 2018

Court of Appeals Case No.

18A-CR-64

Appeal from the Marion Superior 

Court

The Honorable Steven J. Rubick, 

Magistrate

Trial Court Cause No.

49G07-1608-CM-30037

Baker, Judge.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 18A-CR-64 | June 14, 2018 Page 2 of 4

[1] Tenaya Lee appeals her conviction for Class A Misdemeanor Criminal 

Mischief,1 arguing that the evidence was insufficient to support her conviction. 

Finding the evidence sufficient, we affirm.

[2] On July 8, 2016, Erin Cannon was working at a nail salon in Marion County. 

At some point, Lee entered the salon, and Cannon told her that she was not 

allowed inside. Cannon had known Lee for four or five years; Lee had been 

Cannon’s client. Cannon followed Lee outside and called the police.

[3] Meanwhile, Jesse Dickerson was sitting in his vehicle, which was parked in 

front of Cannon’s vehicle in the parking lot, waiting for his wife, who was in 

the salon. Dickerson saw Lee and two other women key Cannon’s vehicle and 

puncture its tires for approximately four to five minutes. Dickerson observed 

Lee perform a “majority” of the acts of vandalism. Tr. Vol. II p. 27. While 

Cannon was on the phone with the police, Dickerson told her that her vehicle 

had been vandalized. Cannon then approached her vehicle and saw that it had

key marks and that two of the tires were slashed. Within a few minutes of 

looking at her vehicle, Cannon received a video phone call from Lee in which 

Lee said, “Haha, you have to get a new paint job now.” Id. at 10. Cannon’s 

vehicle suffered damage totaling approximately $3200.

[4] On August 9, 2016, the State charged Lee with Class A misdemeanor criminal 

mischief. On November 2, 2017, a bench trial took place, and on November 

 

1

Ind. Code § 35-43-1-2(a)(1).
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 18A-CR-64 | June 14, 2018 Page 3 of 4

16, 2017, the trial court found Lee guilty as charged. During a December 14, 

2017, sentencing hearing, the trial court sentenced Lee to 365 days, with 60 

days executed, and 305 days suspended to probation. Lee now appeals.

[5] Lee’s sole argument is that the evidence was insufficient to support her 

conviction. Specifically, she contends that the evidence did not show that she 

was the person who vandalized Cannon’s vehicle. When considering a 

challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence, we do not reweigh the evidence or 

judge the credibility of the witnesses. McHenry v. State, 820 N.E.2d 124, 126 

(Ind. 2005). We will affirm if the probative evidence and the reasonable 

inferences drawn therefrom could have allowed a reasonable jury to find the 

defendant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. Id.

[6] To prove that Lee committed Class A misdemeanor criminal mischief, the State 

was required to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Lee recklessly, 

knowingly, or intentionally damaged or defaced Cannon’s property without 

Cannon’s consent, and that the monetary loss was at least $750 but less than 

$50,000. I.C. § 35-43-1-2(a)(1). Lee does not dispute that Cannon’s vehicle was 

vandalized or that the monetary loss was in the listed range. Rather, she argues 

that the State failed to prove that she was the one who vandalized the vehicle. 

Generally, the “[e]lements of offenses and identity may be established entirely

by circumstantial evidence and logical inferences drawn therefrom.” 

Bustamante v. State, 557 N.E.2d 1313, 1317 (Ind. 1990). 
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 18A-CR-64 | June 14, 2018 Page 4 of 4

[7] Here, the evidence shows that Dickerson witnessed the vandalization and 

testified that Lee was responsible for most of the damage done to Cannon’s 

vehicle. Dickerson testified that he saw Lee key the vehicle and puncture the 

tires. The evidence also shows that, shortly after the offense, Lee called 

Cannon through a video phone call and said, “Haha, you have to get a new 

paint job now.” Tr. Vol. II p. 10. Cannon recognized Lee because she used to 

be a client, and Lee’s video phone call corroborates Dickerson’s testimony. 

Under these facts and circumstances, a reasonable factfinder could conclude 

that it was Lee who vandalized Cannon’s vehicle. Lee’s argument is 

unavailing.

[8] The judgment of the trial court is affirmed. 

Kirsch, J., and Bradford, J., concur.