Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 49A04-1709-CR-2318 | May 31, 2018 Page 1 of 4

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

Ellen M. O’Connor

Marion County Public Defender Agency

Indianapolis, Indiana

ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE

Curtis T. Hill, Jr.

Attorney General of Indiana

Michael Gene Worden

Deputy Attorney General

Indianapolis, Indiana

I N T H E

COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA

Darryl Abron,

Appellant-Defendant,

v.

State of Indiana,

Appellee-Plaintiff

May 31, 2018

Court of Appeals Case No.

49A04-1709-CR-2318

Appeal from the Marion Superior 

Court

The Honorable Ronnie Huerta, 

Commissioner

Trial Court Cause No.

49G09-1704-F6-14350

Baker, Judge.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 49A04-1709-CR-2318 | May 31, 2018 Page 2 of 4

[1] Darryl Abron appeals his conviction for Level 6 Felony Theft,1 arguing that the 

evidence is insufficient to support his conviction. Finding the evidence 

sufficient, we affirm.

[2] On April 18, 2017, Bradley Bastin, an employee at an Indianapolis Kroger 

store, observed Abron shopping in the cold pack deli case. Bastin saw Abron 

reach into the deli case and pull out a couple of packages of chicken. Abron 

turned around, lifted his shirt, and placed the chicken packages in the back of 

his pants. Abron walked away with the chicken packages concealed in his 

clothing and proceeded to the front of the store. Bastin followed him, and 

when Abron reached the front of the store, Bastin confronted him. At that 

point, Abron was over thirty feet away from an open register and had made no 

attempt to pay for the merchandise. Abron became irate, eventually knocking a 

loss prevention officer to the floor. Store personnel called police, who arrested 

Abron.

[3] On April 18, 2017, the State charged Abron with Class A misdemeanor theft, 

Class A misdemeanor battery resulting in bodily injury, and Class B 

misdemeanor battery; the State also filed a charging information enhancing the 

theft charge to a Level 6 felony based on Abron’s prior criminal history. 

Abron’s jury trial took place on June 21, 2017. The jury found Abron guilty of 

theft and not guilty of the remaining charges. The jury also found that the State 

 

1

Ind. Code § 35-43-4-2(a).
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 49A04-1709-CR-2318 | May 31, 2018 Page 3 of 4

proved Abron’s criminal history beyond a reasonable doubt, enhancing the theft 

conviction to a Level 6 felony. On July 19, 2017, the trial court sentenced 

Abron to 730 days imprisonment. Abron now appeals.

[4] Abron’s sole argument on appeal is that the evidence is insufficient to support 

his conviction. When reviewing the sufficiency of the evidence to support a 

conviction, we must consider only the probative evidence and reasonable 

inferences supporting the conviction and will neither assess witness credibility 

nor reweigh the evidence. Drane v. State, 867 N.E.2d 144, 146 (Ind. 2007). We 

will affirm unless no reasonable factfinder could find the elements of the crime 

proved beyond a reasonable doubt. Id. To convict Abron of theft, the State was 

required to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that he knowingly or intentionally 

exerted unauthorized control over the property of another person with the 

intent to deprive the other person of any part of its value or use. I.C. § 35-43-4-

2(a).2

[5] Abron challenges only whether the evidence supports a conclusion that he had 

the intent to deprive the Kroger store of the chicken. A defendant’s intent may 

be based solely on circumstantial evidence. E.g., Purvis v. State, 87 N.E.3d 1119, 

1124 (Ind. Ct. App. 2017). A defendant’s intent may be inferred from his 

conduct and the natural and usual sequence to which such conduct logically 

 

2 Abron does not challenge the evidence that enhanced the theft conviction to a Level 6 felony.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 49A04-1709-CR-2318 | May 31, 2018 Page 4 of 4

and reasonably points. E.g., Long v. State, 867 N.E.2d 606, 614 (Ind. Ct. App. 

2007).

[6] Here, Bastin observed Abron remove two packages of chicken from the deli 

case, lift his shirt, and place them in the back of his pants. Abron then walked 

to the store exit with the merchandise still concealed under his clothing. When 

confronted, he had passed all points for payment and had made no attempt to 

pay. A reasonable factfinder could infer from this evidence that Abron 

intended to remove the chicken from the store without paying for it. See 

Chambliss v. State, 746 N.E.2d 73, 78 (Ind. 2001) (defendant’s concealment of 

lunch meat under his coat while inside store supported his theft conviction). 

Abron’s arguments to the contrary amount to requests that we reweigh the 

evidence, which we decline to do. The evidence is sufficient to support the 

conviction.

[7] The judgment of the trial court is affirmed. 

Kirsch, J., and Bradford, J., concur.