Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 71A03-1605-CR-1190 | March 21, 2017 Page 1 of 5

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

Sean P. Hilgendorf

South Bend, 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

Devon Delshaun Dokes,

Appellant-Defendant,

v.

State of Indiana,

Appellee-Plaintiff.

March 21, 2017

Court of Appeals Case No.

71A03-1605-CR-1190

Appeal from the St. Joseph 

Superior Court

The Honorable John M. 

Marnocha, Judge

Trial Court Cause No.

71D02-1512-F3-65

Bailey, Judge.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 71A03-1605-CR-1190 | March 21, 2017 Page 2 of 5

Case Summary

[1] Devon Delshaun Dokes (“Dokes”) appeals his conviction of Robbery, as a 

Level 5 felony.1 He presents the sole issue of whether there is sufficient 

evidence to support his conviction. We affirm.

Facts and Procedural History

[2] On September 20, 2015, Renee Bond (“Bond”) went to the South Bend 

residence of Terrica McMorris (“McMorris”) to conduct a direct sales home 

party. She was accompanied by her friend Yvonne Kaczmark (“Kaczmark”).

[3] Although the sales presentation was directed toward women, six men were 

present at the residence, serving drinks and going back and forth to the back 

yard. One of those was Dokes, who came to the McMorris residence as a guest 

of McMorris’s cousin. After the sales presentation, Dokes came into the house 

and sat at the dining room table where Bonds was tallying her sales. The party 

proceeds were $530, consisting of one check, one credit card transaction, and 

approximately $400 in cash. Dokes interacted with Bonds for about forty-five 

minutes, asking questions about the products and joking. 

[4] As Bond was completing paperwork, Kaczmark began to remove the product 

totes from the residence and Dokes offered to help. He lifted one of the totes

 

1

Ind. Code § 35-42-5-1.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 71A03-1605-CR-1190 | March 21, 2017 Page 3 of 5

but soon dropped it on the floor and began to retrieve items. It appeared to 

Kaczmark that Dokes was “rummaging around” in the dropped box. (Tr. at 

39.) Kaczmark and Dokes placed the totes in Bond’s vehicle and Dokes left. 

Kaczmark returned to the residence to eat.

[5] Approximately one-half hour later, McMorris walked Bond and Kaczmark to 

the door and said goodnight. Kaczmark opened the passenger door of Bond’s 

vehicle, illuminating the interior. As Bond approached the driver’s side door, 

she felt a gun “pressed fairly hard” to her left temple. (Tr. at 67.) A voice that 

she recognized as Dokes’s voice demanded “give me that purse.” (Tr. at 66.) 

Bond dropped her purse, drink, and a tote bag. She then turned to see a man 

with dreadlocks, dressed in a black hoodie and dark jeans, running away. The 

hairstyle and clothing was consistent with Dokes’s appearance at the party.

[6] Bond – by that time shaking, crying, and hysterical – exclaimed to Kaczmark 

that she had been robbed and then ran to McMorris’s house. Bond pounded on 

the door and, when McMorris answered, Bonds cried out that she had “just got 

robbed” by “the guy at the party.” (Tr. at 116.)

[7] McMorris summoned police and Bond identified Dokes from a photographic 

array. A neighbor found Bond’s purse a few blocks away, but it had been 

emptied of the cash and checks. 

[8] Dokes was arrested and, on April 18, 2016, he was tried in a bench trial upon a 

charge of Robbery, as a Level 3 felony. After the presentation of evidence, he 
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 71A03-1605-CR-1190 | March 21, 2017 Page 4 of 5

was convicted of the lesser-included offense of Robbery, as a Level 5 felony. 

He was sentenced to six years imprisonment. Dokes now appeals.

Discussion and Decision

[9] To convict Dokes of Robbery, as a Level 5 felony, the State was required to 

establish beyond a reasonable doubt that Dokes knowingly or intentionally took 

property from Bond by using or threatening the use of force or by placing Bonds 

in fear. I.C. § 35-42-5-1. Dokes contends that there is insufficient evidence to

identify him as the person who robbed Bond. He also claims that there is a lack 

of evidence as to the element of force or placing the victim in fear.

[10] When reviewing the sufficiency of the evidence to support a criminal 

conviction, this Court will neither reweigh the evidence nor judge witness 

credibility. Bailey v. State, 907 N.E.2d 1003, 1005 (Ind. 2009). “We consider 

only the evidence supporting the judgment and any reasonable inferences that 

can be drawn from such evidence.” Henley v. State, 881 N.E.2d 639, 652 (Ind. 

2008). We will affirm when there is substantial evidence of probative value 

such that a reasonable trier of fact could have concluded the defendant was 

guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. Id.

[11] Bond testified that she recognized her robber by his voice. Also, she had 

recognized that the robber’s hairstyle and clothing were consistent with Dokes’s 

appearance at the party. Dokes asks that we discard this testimony, suggesting 

that a voice recognition provides inadequate identification testimony. He is 
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 71A03-1605-CR-1190 | March 21, 2017 Page 5 of 5

incorrect. In Easley v. State, 427 N.E.2d 435, 436 (Ind. 1981), the Court stated 

“[i]n court identifications on the basis of voice alone have been held sufficient 

to sustain a conviction.” See also Jackson v. State, 758 N.E.2d 1030, 1036 (Ind. 

Ct. App. 2001) (holding that “voice identification evidence that places the 

defendant at the crime scene at the precise time and place of the crime’s 

commission is direct evidence.”)

[12] As for the element of force or placing the victim in fear, Dokes observes that 

Bond did not specifically testify that she was fearful. However, Bond testified 

that she felt a gun pressed to her temple and the force was sufficient to leave an 

imprint. She also testified that she began crying and shaking and dropped her 

property. Kaczmark described Bond as “frantic and hysterical” and testified

that Bond ran toward the house screaming. (Tr. at 28.) McMorris also 

described Bond as being “hysterical.” (Tr. at 115.) This provides sufficient 

evidence from which the fact-finder could conclude that Dokes used or 

threatened force or placed Bond in fear.

Conclusion

[13] The State presented sufficient evidence to support Dokes’s conviction of 

Robbery, as a Level 5 felony.

[14] Affirmed.

Najam, J., and May, J., concur.