Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 18A-CR-2345 | April, 11, 2019 Page 1 of 11

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

Elizabeth A. Bellin

Elkhart, Indiana 

ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEES

Curtis T. Hill, Jr.

Attorney General of Indiana

Justin F. Roebel

Supervising Deputy Attorney 

General

Indianapolis, Indiana

I N T H E

COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA

D’Angelo A. Honorable,

Appellant-Defendant,

v.

State of Indiana,

Appellee-Plaintiff.

April 11, 2019

Court of Appeals Case No.

18A-CR-2345

Appeal from the Elkhart Circuit

Court

The Hon. Michael A. Christofeno, 

Judge

Trial Court Cause No.

20C01-1702-MR-2

Bradford, Judge.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 18A-CR-2345 | April, 11, 2019 Page 2 of 11

Case Summary

[1] In November of 2016, D’Angelo Honorable, born on June 11, 2002, got into an 

argument with his friend’s ex-girlfriend that all started with a post the exgirlfriend made on Facebook. The conflict culminated in Honorable shooting 

five bullets into the ex-girlfriend’s house, which was occupied by numerous 

individuals including four children, killing her mother. Honorable was tried as 

an adult for murder, convicted as charged, and sentenced to sixty-four years of 

incarceration with five suspended to probation. Honorable contends that the 

State failed to produce sufficient evidence to sustain his conviction, his sentence 

is inappropriately harsh, and the trial court abused its discretion in refusing to 

impose alternative juvenile sentencing. Because we disagree with all of 

Honorable’s contentions, we affirm. 

Facts and Procedural History

[2] In November of 2016, Breanna Humphries lived with her mother Teketa 

Hixson and several others in a house at 201 Park Avenue in Elkhart, while 

Humphries’s ex-boyfriend Clarence Sims lived nearby at 2014 Roys Avenue. 

On the afternoon of November 30, 2016, Sims and Humphries exchanged 

angry text messages over something she had posted about him on Facebook. 

When Humphries texted Sims that she wanted to spit on him, he dared her to 

try, and she left 201 Park to confront Sims at his aunt’s house at 130 West 

Cleveland Avenue. 

[3] When Humphries arrived with a friend, she argued with Sims and the thenfourteen-year-old Honorable through an open window, but Sims and 
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 18A-CR-2345 | April, 11, 2019 Page 3 of 11

Honorable refused to come outside. Humphries left and returned with her male 

cousin, who told Sims and Honorable to come outside. Honorable responded, 

“No, we’re waiting on E-Dub. We have a mission to do.” Tr. Vol. III p. 106. 

E-Dub was a friend of Humphries’s aunt who frequently visited at 130 West 

Cleveland. Humphries and the others eventually left, and she returned home to 

201 Park at approximately 8:00 p.m. 

[4] At approximately 9:00 p.m., Humphries, wanting to have the last word, started 

a text conversation with Honorable. The exchange was acrimonious, with 

Humphries generally ridiculing Honorable and Sims for being too cowardly to 

come outside when she had come over to confront Sims, and Honorable, inter 

alia, threatening to “f*** yo house up.” Tr. Vol. III p. 121. Shortly after 9:15 

p.m., Hixson’s nephew Tyquan Page encountered Honorable, who was 

carrying a handgun, in an alleyway near 201 Park. When Page asked 

Honorable what he was doing, he replied that he was “gonna shoot up the 

house.” Tr. Vol. IV p. 10. Honorable also indicated that he had obtained the 

handgun from E-Dub. Page called to warn Hixson about Honorable, but she 

was skeptical. 

[5] At 201 Park, Hixson had just ended her telephone call with Page when the 

shooting began. Honorable had concealed himself behind a nearby garage and 

fired five shots into the house. Approximately ten persons were inside the 

house at the time, and lights were on in many rooms, including at least one 

upstairs bedroom, a downstairs bedroom, a family room, and the kitchen. The 

bullets all struck the house near the family room window, with three entering 
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 18A-CR-2345 | April, 11, 2019 Page 4 of 11

the family room, one becoming embedded in the house’s framing, and one 

entering an upstairs sitting area. Evidence indicated that the curtain on the 

family room window was open at the time. One of the bullets that entered the 

family room passed through a wall into a bedroom, striking Hixson in the head. 

Hixson eventually succumbed to her wound. 

[6] On February 1, 2017, the State charged Honorable with murder following the 

juvenile court’s waiver of jurisdiction. On August 8, 2018, a jury found 

Honorable guilty as charged, and, on August 30, 2018, the trial court sentenced 

him to sixty-four years of incarceration with five suspended to probation. The 

trial court found Honorable’s age and statements to be mitigating. The trial 

court found, as aggravating circumstances, his prior criminal history, including 

five adjudications for violent behavior; his violent behavior at the juvenile 

detention center, including attacking a staff member; his use of alcohol and 

marijuana; his repeated use of a firearm; his failure to take advantage of various 

past alternative sanctions and resources; the circumstances of the crime,

including the presence of children; and the senselessness of the crime. The trial 

court also denied Honorable’s request for alternative juvenile sentencing. 

Discussion and Decision

I. Sufficiency of the Evidence

[7] Honorable contends that the State failed to present evidence sufficient to sustain 

his conviction for murder. When a defendant challenges the sufficiency of the 

evidence used to convict him of a crime, we consider only the probative 

evidence and reasonable inferences arising therefrom supporting the conviction.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 18A-CR-2345 | April, 11, 2019 Page 5 of 11

Drane v. State, 867 N.E.2d 144, 146 (Ind. 2007). We will affirm a conviction 

unless no reasonable fact-finder could find the elements of the crime proven 

beyond a reasonable doubt. Young v. State, 973 N.E.2d 1225, 1226 (Ind. Ct. 

App. 2012). Put another way, reversal of a defendant’s conviction “is 

appropriate only when a reasonable trier of fact would not be able to form 

inferences as to each material element of the offense.” Purvis v. State, 87 N.E.3d 

1119, 1124 (Ind. Ct. App. 2017), aff’d on reh’g, 96 N.E.3d 123 (Ind. Ct. App. 

2018). This standard of review does not permit us to reweigh the evidence or 

allow us to judge the credibility of the witnesses. McCallister v. State, 91 N.E.3d 

554, 558 (Ind. 2018). In cases where there is conflicting evidence in the record, 

we consider the evidence in the light most favorable to the trial court’s 

judgment. Drane, 867 N.E.2d at 146. 

[8] Here, the State was required to establish that Honorable knowingly killed 

Hixson, and Honorable challenges only the State’s proof that he did it 

“knowingly.” Ind. Code § 35-42-1-1(1). “A person knowingly kills when he is 

aware of a high probability that he is engaged in killing.” Lehman v. State, 730 

N.E.2d 701, 704 (Ind. 2000); see also Ind. Code § 35-41-2-2(b) (“A person 

engages in conduct ‘knowingly’ if, when he engages in the conduct, he is aware 

of a high probability that he is doing so.”). A defendant’s state of mind can be 

established “by the circumstances surrounding the killing and the method of 

killing.” Ronk v. State, 470 N.E.2d 1337, 1339 (Ind. 1984). “[K]nowing killing 

may be inferred from a defendant’s use of a deadly weapon in a manner likely 

to cause death.” Barker v. State, 695 N.E.2d 925, 931 (Ind. 1998). 
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 18A-CR-2345 | April, 11, 2019 Page 6 of 11

[9] The circumstances allowed the jury to find that Honorable knew that his 

actions were likely to cause death. Honorable shot five bullets into a house 

being fully aware that Humphries lived there with her mother and siblings and 

which, at the time of the shooting, was occupied by at least four children and 

many adults, several of whom were in the family room. Moreover, the record 

contains ample evidence that the house was occupied at the time. Lights were 

on in many rooms, including at least one upstairs bedroom, the living room, a 

downstairs bedroom, and the kitchen. Televisions were on in the family room 

and downstairs bedroom, and a laptop computer was on upstairs. From his 

position nearby, it is reasonable to infer that Honorable saw the lights on in the 

family room, the kitchen, and the upstairs bedroom, at the very least, and very 

likely the flickering of televisions. 

[10] Despite indications of current occupation, Honorable’s bullets all struck the 

house near the family-room window, with one becoming embedded in the 

house’s framing, three entering the family room in which several persons were 

sitting, and one entering an upstairs sitting area. While there was a curtain on 

the family-room window, the evidence indicated that the curtain was open at 

the time. Even if the curtain had been drawn, a witness described the curtain as 

“thin-like” and explained that an observer would have been able to see if there 

was somebody in the room. Tr. Vol. IV p. 40. We conclude that the evidence 

supports a conclusion that Honorable shot at the house aware of a high 

probability that somebody inside would be killed. 
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 18A-CR-2345 | April, 11, 2019 Page 7 of 11

[11] Honorable points to his testimony that he believed the house was unoccupied

when he fired five shots into it and that he was aiming at the brick near the 

bottom of the house. The jury, however, was not required to credit either of 

these claims and did not. We conclude that the State produced sufficient

evidence to sustain a finding that Honorable had a knowing intent to kill. 

Honorable’s argument amounts to nothing more than an invitation to reweigh 

the evidence, which we will not do. See McCallister, 91 N.E.3d at 558. 

II. Whether Honorable’s Sentence is Inappropriate

[12] Honorable contends that his sentence is inappropriately harsh. We will revise a 

sentence only if, upon “due consideration of the trial court’s decision” it 

nonetheless appears that “the sentence is inappropriate in light of the nature of 

the offense and the character of the offender.” Ind. Appellate Rule 7(B); 

Anglemyer v. State, 868 N.E.2d 482, 490–91 (Ind. 2007), clarified on reh’g, 875 

N.E.2d 218 (2007). The “nature of the offense” refers to the defendant’s acts in 

comparison with the elements of his offense, Cardwell v. State, 895 N.E.2d 1219, 

1224 (Ind. 2008), while “character of the offender” refers to general sentencing 

considerations and the relevant aggravating and mitigating circumstances. 

Knapp v. State, 9 N.E.3d 1274, 1292 (Ind. 2014). Honorable has the burden to 

show his sentence is inappropriate in light of both the nature of the offense and 

his character. Gil v. State, 988 N.E.2d 1231, 1237 (Ind. Ct. App. 2013). This 

can only be done with “compelling evidence portraying in a positive light the 

nature of the offense [...] and the defendant’s character.” Stephenson v. State, 29 

N.E.3d 111, 122 (Ind. 2015). The trial court sentenced Honorable to sixty-four 
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 18A-CR-2345 | April, 11, 2019 Page 8 of 11

years of incarceration, with five suspended to probation. The sentencing range 

for murder is forty-five to sixty-five years, with an advisory sentence of fifty-five

years. Ind. Code § 35-50-2-3.

[13] The nature of Honorable’s offense is disturbing. Honorable fired five bullets 

into a house occupied by approximately ten persons, including four children. 

When Hixson—a mother of four—was shot, she was sitting on a bed next to a 

one-year-old child. While Honorable’s actions only resulted in one death, the 

consequences could have been far worse. Even so, as the trial court noted, the 

shooting destroyed two families by leaving Hixson’s four children without a 

mother and by causing despair to Honorable’s own family. Moreover, as the 

trial court also noted, the shooting was particularly senseless with Honorable 

wanting “to get street cred [...] to show how tough [he is] so that [...]

everybody better know[s] not to mess with” him. Tr. Vol. V p. 65. While 

Honorable attempts to characterize his crime as insuring that Humphries would 

not hurt his grandfather, the text message evidence shows that this shooting was 

mere retaliation for Humphries taunting him for not coming outside during her 

argument with Sims. In any event, Honorable told police that Humphries had 

only threatened to hurt his grandfather’s truck. The nature of Honorable’s 

offense suggests that his sentence is not inappropriate. 

[14] Honorable’s character does not bode well for his argument. The character of 

the offender is found in what is learned regarding a defendant’s life and 

conduct. See Lindsey v. State, 916 N.E.2d 230, 241–42 (Ind. Ct. App. 2009) 

(reviewing the defendant’s criminal history, probation violations, and history of 
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 18A-CR-2345 | April, 11, 2019 Page 9 of 11

misconduct while incarcerated), trans. denied. Despite being only sixteen years 

old at the time of sentencing, Honorable already had a significant history of 

delinquency including an informal adjustment for theft, four adjudications for 

battery, and one adjudication for battery resulting in bodily injury. Honorable 

behaved violently while placed in juvenile detention, attacking a staff member. 

As the trial court observed, “[e]very time [Honorable] get[s] the choice, [he] 

choose[s] violence.” Tr. Vol. V. p. 65. 

[15] Moreover, Honorable has shown little to no interest in reforming himself to 

date. Honorable has been provided with resources and alternative sanctions 

aimed at modifying his behavior, all to no avail, including informal adjustment, 

shoplifting clinic, juvenile detention, non-reporting probation, supervised 

probation, community service, counseling, restitution, random drug screens,

and education. Honorable has an admitted history of alcohol and marijuana 

use, including daily use of marijuana and use of both alcohol and marijuana on 

the day of the shooting. 

[16] Finally, the trial court properly considered Honorable’s statements of remorse. 

As we have observed, “the trial court is in the best position to judge the 

sincerity of a defendant’s remorseful statements.” Stout v. State, 834 N.E.2d 

707, 711 (Ind. Ct. App. 2005), trans. denied. Here, while the court did find 

Honorable’s statements to be mitigating, it also observed Honorable’s conduct 

during trial and sentencing and found that he “never showed remorse for [his] 

actions[.]” Tr. Vol. V pp. 65–66. The trial court observed that “there is a 

hollowness to your words when you say you’re sorry.” Tr. Vol. V p. 66. This 
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 18A-CR-2345 | April, 11, 2019 Page 10 of 11

finding was within the trial court’s discretion. See Stout, 834 N.E.2d at 711. In 

light of the nature of his offense and his character, we conclude that Honorable 

has failed to establish that his sentence is inappropriately harsh. 

III. Whether the Trial Court Abused is Discretion in 

Declining to Impose Alternative Juvenile Sentencing

[17] Indiana Code section 31-30-4-2 provides that when an offender under the age of 

eighteen is convicted of a felony in criminal court, the trial court “may [...]

impose a sentence upon the conviction of the offender under this chapter[,]” 

which allows for suspended sentences or juvenile commitments instead of a 

criminal sentence. The statute explicitly leaves application of alternative 

juvenile sentencing to the discretion of the trial court. Id. In Legg v. State, 22 

N.E.3d 763 (Ind. Ct. App. 2014), trans. denied, we concluded that while there 

are no mandatory considerations for a trial court making this determination, the 

criteria listed in Indiana Code section 31-30-3-2 regarding waiver into adult 

court “are good examples of the kinds of criteria a trial court may consider in 

reaching its decision on this issue.” Id. at 767. That waiver provision sets out 

five considerations: 

(1) the child is charged with an act that is a felony: 

(A) that is heinous or aggravated, with greater weight given to 

acts against the person than to acts against property; or 

(B) that is a part of a repetitive pattern of delinquent acts, even 

though less serious; 

(2) the child was at least fourteen (14) years of age when the act 

charged was allegedly committed;
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 18A-CR-2345 | April, 11, 2019 Page 11 of 11

(3) there is probable cause to believe that the child committed the 

act;

(4) the child is beyond rehabilitation under the juvenile justice 

system; and 

(5) it is in the best interests of the safety and welfare of the 

community that the child stand trial as an adult. 

Ind. Code § 31-30-3-2. 

[18] Here, we conclude that the same circumstances that supported waiver into 

adult court also supported denial of alternative sentencing. Honorable’s 

criminal conduct of firing repeatedly into a home occupied by approximately 

ten persons, including four children, was heinous, and more than one death 

could easily have resulted. Honorable also has a significant record of 

delinquency, including prior acts of violence and failed efforts at rehabilitation. 

The trial court had more than enough evidence to implicitly conclude that the 

juvenile rehabilitation system could no longer help Honorable and that it was in 

the best interests of the community that he receive an adult sentence. Based 

upon the seriousness of the offense and Honorable’s failure to reform his 

conduct in the juvenile system, we conclude that the trial court was within its 

discretion to decline his request to apply the alternative juvenile sentencing 

statute. See Legg, 22 N.E.3d at 767 (concluding that the trial court did not abuse 

its discretion in refusing to alternatively sentence a sixteen-year-old who 

committed murder as part of a pattern of other delinquent acts). 

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

Crone, J., and Tavitas, J., concur.