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 jud icata, collateral estoppel, or the law of the case.

ATTORNEY FOR A PPELLANT : ATTORNEY S FOR APPELLEE :

TIMOTHY J. BURNS GREGORY F. ZOELLER Indianapolis, Indiana Attorney General of Indiana

J.T. WHITEHEAD Deputy Attorney General Indianapolis, Indiana



## IN THE COURT OF APP EALS OF INDIANA

TERRENCE MORRIS, ) ) Appellant

- Defendant
, ) )

vs. ) No. 49A05

- 1301

- CR

- 2 ) STATE OF INDIANA, ) ) Appellee

- Plaintiff

. )

APPEAL FROM THE MARION SUPERIOR COU RT The Honorable Valerie C. Horvath
, Commissioner Cause No. 49G17

- 1211

- CM

- 75571

July 19, 2013

MEMORANDUM DECISION

- NOT FOR PUBLICATION
BAILEY, Judge

### 2 Case Summary
Terrence Morris (“Morris”) appeals his conviction for Battery, as a Class B

misdemeanor. 1 

### He presents the sole issue of whether there is sufficient evidence to support

his conviction. We affirm.
Facts and Procedural History
On November 2, 2011, at around 4:30 p.m., Morris ran into the parking lot of

Homeless Re

- Entry Helpers, where a group of about forty people were gathered awaiting the
opening of the doors and meal service. Morris was agitated and screaming, and tried to
provoke volunteer Charles Williams (“Williams”) into a fight. When Williams declined to
fight, Morris turned and twice struck Stephani Dishoungh (“Dishoungh”) with a closed fist.
The blows left a red mark on Dishoungh’s face. Several of the assembled individuals “ended
up fighting.” (Tr. 27.)
Morris was arrested and charged with Battery, as a Class A misdemeanor, and
Domestic Battery. 2 

### The latter charge was dismis sed and, at the conclusion of a bench trial,
Morris was convicted of Battery, as a Class B misdemeanor. He was sentenced to 180 days
imprisonment (with 110 days suspended to probation). He now appeals.

Discussion and Decision

Morris claims that th e evidence is insufficient to support his conviction. More
specifically, he contends that his conviction should be reversed because the State presented

1 Ind. Code § 35

- 42

- 2

- 1. This statute has since been re

- codified. We refer to the statute in effect at the time of Morris’s offense.

2 I.C. § 35

- 42

- 2

- 1.3. This statute has since been re

- codified. We refer to the statute in effect a t the time of Morris’s offense.

### 3

conflicting testimony from multiple witnesses who had been involved in a confusing melee.

To convict M orris of Battery, as a Class B misdemeanor, the State was required to
establish that Morris knowingly or intentionally touched Dishoungh in a rude, insolent, or
angry manner. I.C. § 35

- 42

- 2

- 1. When reviewing a claim of insufficiency of the evidence,

we d o not reweigh the evidence or judge the credibility of the witnesses, but will consider
only the probative evidence and reasonable inferences supporting the judgment. Drane v.

State , 867 N.E.2d 144, 146 (Ind. 2007). We will affirm the conviction unless n o reasonable

fact

- finder could find the elements of the crime proven beyond a reasonable doubt. Id.
Williams testified that he saw Morris “punch” Dishoungh. (Tr. 5.) According to

Williams, Morris landed two blows with a closed fist. Candice Brooks also testified that she
witnessed Williams strike Dishoungh and that Dishoungh began to cry. At that juncture,
“everybody just basically jumped in a fight.” (Tr. 28.) Indianapolis Metropolitan Police
Officer Colin Anslow testified that, upon responding to t he report of the incident at the
shelter, he observed redness on Dishoungh’s cheek. The State presented sufficient evidence
to establish beyond a reasonable doubt that Morris knowingly or intentionally touched
Dishoungh in a rude, insolent, or angry manne r.

Affirmed.

NAJAM, J., and BARNES, J., concur.