Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 19A-CR-1235 | December 6, 2019 Page 1 of 8

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

Anthony S. Churchward

Fort Wayne, Indiana

ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE

Curtis T. Hill, Jr.

Attorney General of Indiana

Courtney Staton

Deputy Attorney General

Indianapolis, Indiana

IN THE

COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA

Deandrew R. Halliburton,

Appellant-Defendant,

v.

State of Indiana,

Appellee-Plaintiff.

December 6, 2019

Court of Appeals Case No.

19A-CR-1235

Appeal from the Whitley Circuit 

Court

The Honorable Matthew J. 

Rentschler, Judge

Trial Court Cause No.

92C01-1812-F5-172

Tavitas, Judge.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 19A-CR-1235 | December 6, 2019 Page 2 of 8

Case Summary

[1] Deandrew Halliburton appeals his conviction for theft, a Level 6 felony. We 

affirm. 

Issue

[2] Halliburton raises one issue, which we restate as whether the evidence is

sufficient to support Halliburton’s theft conviction. 

Facts

[3] On December 12, 2018, Halliburton contacted his acquaintance, Benjamin 

Greer, who lives in Whitley County, and asked Greer to give Halliburton and 

Halliburton’s girlfriend, Sharon, a ride. Late that night, Greer drove his 

vehicle, a 2008 Cadillac DTS, to Logansport, about an hour away from his 

home, to pick up Halliburton and Sharon.

[4] Greer drove Halliburton and Sharon back to his home, which Greer shared

with his parents and brother. Greer told Halliburton and Sharon they could 

stay with Greer for one night. When they arrived at the home, Greer placed the 

keys to his Cadillac in a dish near the back door. That night, and much of the 

following day, Halliburton and Sharon stayed in Greer’s bedroom, which 

contained Greer’s personal belongings, including electronic equipment, jewelry, 

and expensive clothing items. 

[5] The next day, on December 13, Greer, who works from approximately 3:00 

p.m. to 11:00 p.m., left for work around 2:40 p.m. At approximately 7:00 p.m., 
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 19A-CR-1235 | December 6, 2019 Page 3 of 8

Greer’s mother, Stephanie Greer, returned to the family home and was home 

alone with Halliburton and Sharon. Greer’s Cadillac was parked outside the 

home. Stephanie had not met Halliburton or Sharon; accordingly, Stephanie 

went upstairs to Greer’s bedroom to introduce herself. Stephanie then returned 

downstairs to complete tasks around the home. 

[6] Later, Halliburton went outside to smoke a cigarette. When Halliburton went 

outside, he passed the dish where Greer stored his keys. When Halliburton

came back inside, he asked Stephanie for garbage bags to store his personal 

belongings that were in the trunk of Greer’s Cadillac. After Stephanie gave

Halliburton the garbage bags, Stephanie returned to complete her tasks inside 

the home. Stephanie did not see Sharon during this period of time. Later, 

Stephanie realized the Cadillac was missing and notified Greer. 

[7] Greer attempted to call Halliburton; however, Halliburton did not answer and

blocked Greer on Halliburton’s social media accounts. Stephanie then called 

the police. When Greer returned home, he noticed that several items were 

missing from both his bedroom and his brother’s bedroom, including a silver 

cross diamond necklace. Greer did not give Halliburton or Sharon permission 

to take Greer’s vehicle or property. 
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 19A-CR-1235 | December 6, 2019 Page 4 of 8

[8] On December 15, 2018, at approximately 1:00 a.m.,

1 Trooper Marion Hester, 

with the Michigan State Police, conducted a traffic stop of a Cadillac, after 

Trooper Hester observed the driver driving erratically.2

 The driver identified 

herself as Jenna Vanhorn, and the passengers included Halliburton, who was 

sitting in the front passenger seat, and another woman—who was not identified 

at trial—in the rear passenger seat. Trooper Hester and her partner, Trooper 

Ryan Krebiehl, determined that the Cadillac was reported stolen. When asked, 

Vanhorn did not know who owned the vehicle. 

[9] Trooper Hester obtained a search warrant for the Cadillac and found several 

items belonging to Greer in the trunk. Trooper Hester also observed that 

Halliburton was wearing a silver cross diamond necklace, which belonged to 

Greer. 

[10] The State charged Halliburton with Count I, auto theft, a Level 5 felony; and 

Count II, theft, a Level 6 felony, on December 31, 2018. On March 14, 2019, 

the State filed a notice of intent to seek habitual offender status due to 

Halliburton’s previous convictions for possession of a handgun by a felon, a 

Class C felony, in Elkhart County in 2011; and possession of a deadly weapon 

by an incarcerated person, a Class C felony, in LaPorte County in 2013. On 

1 Trooper Hester’s testimony is somewhat unclear as to whether the Cadillac was pulled over during the early 

morning hours on December 15, 2018, or late on December 14, 2018. The police report, however, is dated 

December 15, 2018 around 1:00 a.m.; therefore, we will use this date. 

2 Trooper Hester conducted the stop in Wexford County, Michigan, which is approximately four hours away 

from Whitley County, Indiana. 
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 19A-CR-1235 | December 6, 2019 Page 5 of 8

April 2, 2019, the State filed an amended notice of intent to seek habitual 

offender status and added Halliburton’s conviction for auto theft, a Class D 

felony, in Elkhart County in 2011. On April 5, 2019, the State moved to 

dismiss Count I, which the trial court granted on April 8, 2019. Halliburton’s 

jury trial began April 10, 2019; Halliburton appeared pro se. 

[11] After witnesses testified to the foregoing facts, a jury found Halliburton guilty of 

theft, a Level 6 felony. Subsequently, the jury found that Halliburton was a 

habitual offender. After Halliburton’s jury trial was completed, on April 26, 

2018, Halliburton filed a motion for directed verdict, which the trial court 

denied. Halliburton now appeals. 

Analysis

[12] Halliburton argues the evidence is insufficient to support his conviction for 

theft. When there is a challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence, “[w]e neither 

reweigh evidence nor judge witness credibility.” Gibson v. State, 51 N.E.3d 204, 

210 (Ind. 2016) (citing Bieghler v. State, 481 N.E.2d 78, 84 (Ind. 1985), cert. 

denied). Instead, “we ‘consider only that evidence most favorable to the 

judgment together with all reasonable inferences drawn therefrom.’” Id. 

(quoting Bieghler, 481 N.E.2d at 84). “We will affirm the judgment if it is 

supported by ‘substantial evidence of probative value even if there is some 

conflict in that evidence.’” Id. (quoting Bieghler, 481 N.E.2d at 84); see also 

McCallister v. State, 91 N.E.3d 554, 558 (Ind. 2018) (holding that, even though 

there was conflicting evidence, it was “beside the point” because that argument 

“misapprehend[s] our limited role as a reviewing court”). Further, “[w]e will 
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 19A-CR-1235 | December 6, 2019 Page 6 of 8

affirm the conviction unless no reasonable fact-finder could find the elements of 

the crime proven beyond a reasonable doubt.” Love v. State, 73 N.E.3d 693, 696 

(Ind. 2017) (citing Drane v. State, 867 N.E.2d 144, 146 (Ind. 2007)). 

[13] To prove that Halliburton committed theft, as defined in Indiana Code Section 

35-43-4-1, the State must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant 

“knowingly or intentionally exert[ed] unauthorized control over property of 

another person, with intent to deprive the other person of any part of its value 

or use.” The offense is a Level 6 felony if the value of the property “is at least 

seven hundred fifty dollars ($750) and less than fifty thousand dollars 

($50,000).” Ind. Code § 35-43-4-2(a)(1). Halliburton argues, specifically, that 

the State did not prove that Halliburton “exerted unauthorized control of the 

property in Indiana,” and that whether Halliburton “is guilty of possessing 

stolen property in Wexford County, Michigan is a question for another court.” 

Appellant’s Br. pp. 11, 14. 

[14] Halliburton relies on Fortson v. State, 919 N.E.2d 1136, 1143 (Ind. 2010), to 

support his position that “the mere unexplained possession of recently stolen 

property standing alone does not automatically support a conviction for theft.” 

As the State correctly points out, Fortson also holds: 

Rather, such possession is to be considered along with the other 

evidence in a case, such as how recent or distant in time was the 

possession from the moment the item was stolen, and what are 

the circumstances of the possession (say, possessing right next 

door as opposed to many miles away). In essence, the fact of 

possession and all the surrounding evidence about the possession 
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 19A-CR-1235 | December 6, 2019 Page 7 of 8

must be assessed to determine whether any rational juror could 

find the defendant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.

Id. 

[15] Here, the surrounding circumstances, in addition to the unexplained 

possession, support Halliburton’s theft conviction: (1) Halliburton was a guest 

in Greer’s home when the Cadillac and property were stolen; (2) Halliburton 

had access to the vehicle’s keys and the property; (3) the vehicle was outside the 

home when Greer left for work and when Stephanie returned to the house; (4) 

Stephanie later noticed the vehicle was missing; (5) Halliburton and Sharon left 

abruptly; (6) Halliburton was unresponsive to Greer’s phone calls and blocked 

communication from Greer on social media; (7) several items were missing 

from Greer’s bedroom and Greer’s brother’s bedroom; and (8) Halliburton was 

found riding in the vehicle with the stolen items the next day in Michigan. 

Moreover, Greer testified that he never gave Halliburton permission to take or 

use his personal property or vehicle. Based on the surrounding circumstances, 

the evidence was sufficient to convict Halliburton of theft. See Bennett v. State, 

871 N.E.2d 316, 323 (Ind. Ct. App. 2007), opinion adopted by Bennett v. State, 878 

N.E.2d 836 (Ind. 2008) (finding “[a] theft conviction may be sustained by 

circumstantial evidence”). 

[16] Finally, we address Halliburton’s contention that insufficient evidence existed 

that he committed theft in Indiana because he was found in the vehicle with the 

property in Michigan, instead of Indiana. Although Halliburton was 

discovered in Michigan, Halliburton was a guest at Greer’s home in Indiana, 
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 19A-CR-1235 | December 6, 2019 Page 8 of 8

where Greer’s Cadillac and other possessions were taken. Halliburton and the 

Cadillac, with Greer’s personal items, went missing from the home at the same 

time. The circumstantial evidence supported the jury’s conclusion that 

Halliburton committed the theft in Indiana. To ask us to conclude otherwise 

would require us to reweigh the evidence, which we cannot do. See Gibson, 51

N.E.3d at 210. 

Conclusion

[17] The evidence was sufficient to convict Halliburton of theft. We affirm. 

[18] Affirmed. 

Brown, J., and Altice, J., concur.