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 : ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE : BARBARA J. SIMMONS GREGORY F. ZOELLER Oldenburg, Indiana Attorney General of Indiana CHANDRA K. HEIN Deputy Attorney General Indianapolis, Indiana


## IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA

DONTE CARTER, ) ) Appellant

- Defendant, ) ) vs. ) No. 49A02

- 1301

- CR

- 10 ) STATE OF INDIANA, ) ) Appellee

- Plaintiff. )

APPEAL FROM THE MARION SUPERIOR COURT The Honorable Lisa F. Borges, Judge The Honorable Stanley Kroh, Master Commissioner Cause No. 49G0 4

- 1208

- CM

- 59931

July 24, 2013 MEMORANDUM DECISION
- NOT FOR PUBLICATION DARDEN , Senior Judge2 STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Donte Carter appeals his conviction of battery on a law enforcement officer , a Class A misdemeanor

. Ind. Code § 35

- 42

- 2

- 1 (2012 ). We affirm.
ISSUE
Carter raises one issue , which we restate as: whether the State provided sufficient evidence to negate Carter’s claim of self

- defense

. FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY
On August 28, 2012, Carter was incarcerated in the Marion County Jail. De puty Shawn Middleton of the Marion County Sheriff’s Department was told to move Carter to another section of the jail

. Middleton approached Carter with three other deputies . Middleton told Carter to gather his personal items, but he refused. Next, as Middleton turned his head, Carter punched him in the face. Several other deputies grabbed Carter and put him on the ground. Carter continued to struggle, so Middleton tased him. The deputies were then able to put Carter in handcuffs. The State charge d Carter with battery on a law enforcement officer. After a bench trial, wherein several deputies testified that Carter, unprovoked, punched Middleton in the face, the court determined he was guilty as charged. The court declined to enter a sentence beca use Carter was alrea dy serving a lengthy sentence in the custody of the Indiana Department of Correction. This appeal followed.3 DISCUSSION AND DECISION Carter does not dispute that the State proved all of the elements of the offense of battery upon a la w enforcement officer. Instead, he argues that he acted in self

- defense. A valid claim of defense of oneself or another person is legal justification for an otherwise criminal a ct. Ind. Code § 35

- 41

- 3

- 2 (2012 ). When a claim of self

- defense is raised a nd finds support in the evidence, the State has the burden of negating at least one of the necessary elements beyond a reasonable doubt. Wilson v. State , 770 N.E.2d 799, 800 (Ind. 2002). The standard of review for a challenge to the sufficiency of the ev idence to rebut a claim of self

- defense is the same as the standard for any sufficiency of the evidence claim. Id. at 801. We do not reweigh the evidence or judge the credibility of the witnesses. Joslyn v. State , 942 N.E.2d 809, 811 (Ind. 2011) . We consider only the probative evidence and reasonable inferences drawn from the evidence that support the judgment

. Id. If a defendant is co nvict ed despite a claim of self

- defense, we reverse only if no reason able person could say that self

- defense was negated by the State beyond a reasonable doubt. Wilso n , 770 N.E.2d at 800

- 01. To prevail on a claim of self

- defense, the defendant must present evidence that he: (1) was in a place he had a right to be, (2) did not provoke, instigate, or participate willingly in the violence, and (3) had a reasonable fea r of death or great bodily harm. Tharpe v. State , 955 N.E.2d 836, 844 (Ind. Ct. App. 2011), trans. denied

. In this case, the evidence most favorable to the judgment establishes t hat Carter hit Middleton in response t o Middleton’s instruction to get his personal items. Thus, he4

provoked, instigated, or participated willingly in the violence. Carter’s assertion that the deputies attacked him first is a request to reweigh the evidence, which we cannot do. Consequently, the State presented sufficient evi dence to negate Carter’s claim of self

def ense . See id. at 845 (the State rebutted Tharpe’s claim of self

- defense because the evidence most favorable to the judgment established that Tharpe shot first at the police officer).
CONCLUSION For the reasons stated above, we affirm the judgment of the trial court

. Affirmed. BAKER, J., and MAY, J., concur.