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:

ELLEN M. O’CONNOR GREGORY F. ZOELLER

Marion County Public Defender Agency Attorney General of Indiana 

Indianapolis, Indiana

ERIC P. BABBS

Deputy Attorney General 

Indianapolis, Indiana 

IN THE

COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA

ROBIN SHANNON, )

)

Appellant-Defendant, )

)

vs. ) No. 49A02-1312-CR-1010

)

STATE OF INDIANA, )

)

Appellee-Plaintiff. )

APPEAL FROM THE MARION SUPERIOR COURT

The Honorable Shatrese M. Flowers, Master Commissioner

Cause No. 49F24-1204-FD-27887

July 2, 2014

MEMORANDUM DECISION - NOT FOR PUBLICATION

ROBB, Judge
2

Case Summary and Issue

Following a bench trial, Robin Shannon was convicted of theft, a Class D felony, 

and sentenced to 365 days with credit for time served, all suspended to probation. 

Shannon appeals her conviction, raising one issue for our review: whether the evidence 

was sufficient to support her conviction. Concluding the evidence was sufficient, we 

affirm.

Facts and Procedural History

On April 26, 2012, Macy’s loss prevention officers Natalie Hoover and Jeremiah 

Kiel were conducting video surveillance of Natasha Hill, a Macy’s cashier. Shannon 

approached Hill’s register with four pillows priced $160.00 to $200.00 and a comforter 

priced at $640.00. Before purchasing those items, however, she returned two sweaters 

and also gave Hill several receipts for the purpose of receiving price adjustments on items 

she had previously purchased. Hill processed the return and then ostensibly processed 

the price adjustments, but instead, she keyed items into the register by hand rather than 

scanning the receipts and actually processed an additional eighteen items from those 

receipts as returns. Hill gave Shannon a gift card in the amount of $938.65 for the returns 

and “price adjustments.” While Hill was doing this, Shannon continued shopping and 

returned to the register with a cookware set priced at $279.99 and a set of kitchen storage 

containers priced at $49.99. Hill placed return stickers on all seven items Shannon 

presented so it would appear they had been purchased and then pretended to scan all the 

items. However, she actually scanned only the storage containers twice and applied a 

coupon, charging $80.23 to the gift card she had previously given Shannon. Shannon left 

the kitchen items at the register to be taken to the dock for pickup at a later time and took 
3

the pillows and comforter with her. Hoover and Kiel were able to see the register 

transaction and alerted their loss prevention manager to the ruse. As Shannon was 

walking toward the store’s exit, the loss prevention manager stopped her and escorted her 

to the store’s loss prevention office. Shannon initially denied knowing Hill and claimed 

she had legitimately purchased the items, but later admitted to Kiel that Hill was an 

acquaintance and that she knew she had not paid for the items.

The State charged Shannon with two counts of theft, one count for the fraudulent 

return transaction (for exerting unauthorized control over the value of United States 

currency belonging to Macy’s) and one count for the fraudulent purchase transaction (for 

exerting unauthorized control over United States currency and the bedding and cookware 

belonging to Macy’s). See Appellant’s Appendix at 25-26. Shannon testified at the 

bench trial that the pillows had been mispriced at $9.99, that the comforter was on sale, 

and that she expected her coupon, an additional “Friends and Family” discount, and her 

price adjustments would cover her purchases. She also testified that she did not know 

Hill, and she denied ever admitting that she knew the items had not been paid for. At the 

conclusion of the bench trial, the State essentially withdrew the first count of theft, noting 

that “looking at the way that the charging information [is] I believe that technically Count 

1 is included in Count 2 . . . [and] I think there would be double jeopardy issues if the 

Court would enter judgment of conviction as to both.” Transcript at 92. The trial court 

agreed with the State, found Shannon not guilty of Count 1 but guilty of Count 2 and 

sentenced her to one year, suspended to probation. Shannon now appeals her conviction.
4

Discussion and Decision

Our standard of review for a sufficiency claim is well settled: we do not reweigh 

the evidence or assess the credibility of witnesses. Ball v. State, 945 N.E.2d 252, 255 

(Ind. Ct. App. 2011), trans. denied. We consider only the probative evidence and 

reasonable inferences supporting the judgment. Boggs v. State, 928 N.E.2d 855, 864 

(Ind. Ct. App. 2010), trans. denied. It is not necessary that the evidence overcome every 

reasonable hypothesis of innocence; the evidence is sufficient if an inference may 

reasonably be drawn from it to support the verdict. Id. We will affirm the conviction 

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

reasonable doubt. Id.

To convict Shannon of theft as charged, the State must have proved that she 

knowingly exerted unauthorized control over “the value of United States currency and/or 

pillows and/or comforter and/or cookware” belonging to Macy’s with the intent to 

deprive Macy’s of its value or use. Appellant’s App. at 26. For purposes of the theft 

statute:

[A] person’s control over property of another person is “unauthorized” if it 

is exerted:

(1) without the other person’s consent;

(2) in a manner or to an extent other than that to which the other person has 

consented;

* * *

(4) by creating or confirming a false impression in the other person . . . .

Ind. Code § 35-43-4-1(b). Shannon challenges the evidence of intent, arguing that the 

evidence only supports her intent to benefit from a good deal, not an intent to exercise 

unauthorized control over or deprive Macy’s of the value of its goods. 
5

Shannon’s argument is essentially an invitation for us to reweigh the evidence in 

her favor. Shannon argues the videofeed of the transaction which Hoover and Kiel 

watched live and which was saved to CD and admitted into evidence shows no familiarity 

between herself and Hill.1 However, if they were acting in concert to conduct an illicit 

transaction, it only makes sense they would act as if they were strangers. Shannon also 

argues that she believed her returns and price adjustments together with mispriced 

merchandise, sales prices, and coupons would cover the cost of the new merchandise she 

was purchasing and she had no obligation to correct or reject pricing errors. We cannot 

accept, as the trial court also did not accept, that a person could legitimately believe she 

could receive price adjustments on eighteen items, most of which appear to be items of 

clothing, in the amount of over $900.00, or that she could purchase almost $1,800.00 

worth of items for only $80.00. The evidence most favorable to the trial court’s 

judgment is that Shannon knew Hill, that Hill gave her full refunds for eighteen items she 

did not physically return, that she presented seven items for purchase which Hill marked 

with return codes, and that Hill rang up only the least expensive of the items, although 

she did ring it up twice. Shannon does not dispute that she did not have a receipt 

showing the purchase of the items she was carrying out of the store when she was 

stopped. See Wilson v. State, 835 N.E.2d 1044, 1051 (Ind. Ct. App. 2005) (holding 

evidence sufficient to support theft conviction when defendant was stopped at entrance to 

store carrying bagged merchandise for which she had no receipt), trans. denied. 

 

1

 Like the State, this court was unable to view the video of the transaction that was entered into evidence at 

the trial. See Brief of Appellee at 8 n.2. However, it does not appear there is any dispute about what the video 

shows. 
6

Conclusion

The State’s evidence proves that Shannon engaged in this transaction with the 

intent to deprive Macy’s of currency and merchandise. Her conviction is affirmed.

Affirmed.

RILEY, J., and BRADFORD, J., concur.