Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 71A03-1601-CR-212 | August 18, 2016 Page 1 of 6

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

Sean P Hilgendorf

South Bend, Indiana

ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE

Gregory F. Zoeller

Attorney General of Indiana

Caryn N. Szyper

Deputy Attorney General

Indianapolis, Indiana 

I N T H E

COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA

Tasha Subili,

Appellant-Defendant,

v.

State of Indiana,

Appellee-Plaintiff.

August 18, 2016

Court of Appeals Case No.

71A03-1601-CR-212

Appeal from the St. Joseph Superior

Court

The Hon. Jenny Pitts Manier, Judge

Trial Court Cause No. 71D02-1503-

CM-1075

Bradford, Judge.

Case Summary

[1] On March 27, 2015, Appellant-Defendant Tasha Subili was on the property of 

the South Bend International Airport (“the Airport”) after having been told she 
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 71A03-1601-CR-212 | August 18, 2016 Page 2 of 6

was no longer welcome there without legitimate business. Subili approached 

Mark Eads and told him that she needed money to get to LaPorte, Indiana, and 

said she had found a driver willing to take her there for $60. As Eads attempted 

to verify Subili’s story with the taxi driver that Subili indicated, Subili took a 

$50 bill from Eads’s hand without authorization. Appellee-Plaintiff the State of 

Indiana charged Subili with criminal trespass and criminal conversion, both 

Class A misdemeanors. The trial court found Subili guilty as charged and 

sentenced her to 270 days of incarceration for each conviction, to be served 

concurrently, and ordered restitution of $50. Subili contends that the State 

failed to produce sufficient evidence to sustain either of her convictions. 

Because we disagree, we affirm. 

Facts and Procedural History

[2] On January 29, 2015, Matthew Willis, who works as a police officer, 

emergency medical technician, and firefighter at the Airport, responded to a 

report of a woman yelling at the taxi stand. Officer Willis arrived and found 

Subili walking nearby. Officer Willis recognized Subili from an incident nine 

days previously, when he had told her that if she came back to the Airport 

“scamming people for money” and did not have an appropriate ticket, she 

would be issued a trespass order. Consequently, when Officer Willis 

encountered Subili on January 29, 2015, and verified that she did not have a 

ticket, he issued her a trespass order. The “Notice of Trespass” notified Subili 

that her patronage was no longer welcome at the Airport and that if she entered 
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 71A03-1601-CR-212 | August 18, 2016 Page 3 of 6

the premises again without a valid ticket for a mode of transportation available 

at the Airport, she would be prosecuted for trespass and subject to a fine and/or 

incarceration. Officer Willis testified that it was “common practice” to give 

copies of trespass orders to those they were issued to and that he told Subili she 

was no longer welcome at the Airport if she “was not conducting business as far 

as those planes, trains [or] buying a ticket[.]” Tr. p. 18-19. The Notice of 

Trespass, admitted as State’s Exhibit 1, indicates that it was served on Subili. 

[3] On March 27, 2015, Eads was at the Airport to pick up his mother when he was 

approached by Subili. Subili told Eads that she needed money to get to LaPorte 

and that she had found a taxi driver willing to take her for $60. Eads told Subili 

that he wanted to meet the taxi driver, and the duo walked to a taxi, into which 

Subili “crawled[.]” Tr. p. 22. As Eads questioned the driver, who was 

“nodding his head no[,]” Subili reached out and “snatched” a $50 bill that Eads 

had in his hand. Tr. p. 22. At that point, the driver exited the taxi and, along 

with Eads, held the back doors of the taxi, preventing Subili’s escape. Subili 

“turned into a wild cat in the back of that taxi [and] was attempting to kick the 

windows out and everything out.” Tr. p. 22. Eventually, police arrived and 

arrested Subili. At no point did Eads tell Subili that she could have the $50 bill 

and, in fact, specifically told her that he would only give it to the taxi driver. 

[4] On March 30, 2015, the State charged Subili with criminal trespass and 

criminal conversion, both Class A misdemeanors. On October 8, 2015, the trial 

court found Subili guilty as charged and sentenced her to 270 days of 
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 71A03-1601-CR-212 | August 18, 2016 Page 4 of 6

incarceration for each conviction, to be served concurrently, and ordered 

restitution of $50. 

Discussion and Decision

[5] Subili contends that the State failed to produce sufficient evidence to sustain 

either of her convictions. When reviewing the sufficiency of the evidence, we 

neither weigh the evidence nor resolve questions of credibility. Jordan v. State, 

656 N.E.2d 816, 817 (Ind. 1995). We look only to the evidence of probative 

value and the reasonable inferences to be drawn therefrom which support the 

verdict. Id. If from that viewpoint there is evidence of probative value from 

which a reasonable trier of fact could conclude that the defendant was guilty 

beyond a reasonable doubt, we will affirm the conviction. Spangler v. State, 607 

N.E.2d 720, 724 (Ind. 1993). 

I. Criminal Trespass

[6] Indiana Code subsection 35-43-2-2(b)(1) provides, in part, that “[a] person who 

... not having a contractual interest in the property, knowingly or intentionally 

enters the real property of another person after having been denied entry by the 

other person or that person’s agent .... commits criminal trespass, a Class A 

misdemeanor.” “A person has been denied entry under subsection (b)(1) when 

the person has been denied entry by means of ... personal communication, oral 

or written[.]” Ind. Code § 35-43-2-2(c)(1). 

[7] Subili contends that the State failed to establish that Officer Willis actually 

served the Notice of Trespass on her on January 29, 2015, even though the 
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 71A03-1601-CR-212 | August 18, 2016 Page 5 of 6

Notice indicates that it was served on her. Officer Willis, however, testified 

that it was “common practice” to serve Notices of Trespass, which gives rise to 

a reasonable inference that this was done on January 29, 2015. In any event, 

Indiana Code subsection 35-43-2-2(c) provides that a person may be denied 

entry through oral personal communication, and Officer Willis testified that he 

told Subili that she was no longer welcome on Airport property without a valid 

reason to be there. Subili points to her testimony that she was at the Airport to 

meet a friend for a drink before travelling to LaPorte. The trial court was under 

no obligation to credit this testimony and did not. Subili’s argument is nothing 

more than an invitation to reweigh the evidence, which we will not do. 

II. Criminal Conversion 

[8] Subili also contends that the State failed to produce sufficient evidence to 

support her conviction for criminal conversion. “A person who knowingly or 

intentionally exerts unauthorized control over property of another person 

commits criminal conversion, a Class A misdemeanor.” Ind. Code § 35-43-4-

39(a). Subili’s argument seems to be that the State’s proof fails because there is 

no evidence that the $50 bill was found on her person after her arrest. Subili

cites to no authority for the proposition that the converted property must be 

found on a defendant in order to support a conviction for criminal conversion. 

Eads testified that he specifically told Subili that he would only give the $50 bill 

to the taxi driver and that Subili subsequently took it from his hand. The trial 

court was entitled to credit this testimony and did so. Again, Subili’s argument 

amounts to an invitation to reweigh the evidence, which we will not do. 
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 71A03-1601-CR-212 | August 18, 2016 Page 6 of 6

[9] We affirm the judgment of the trial court. 

Pyle, J., and Altice, J., concur.