Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 71A03-1707-CR-1722 | December 15, 2017 Page 1 of 7

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

Caroline G. Templeton

Deputy Attorney General

Indianapolis, Indiana

I N T H E

COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA

Dequan Rainous Estelle,

Appellant-Defendant,

v.

State of Indiana,

Appellee-Plaintiff.

December 15, 2017

Court of Appeals Case No.

71A03-1707-CR-1722

Appeal from the St. Joseph 

Superior Court

The Honorable Jeffrey L. Sanford, 

Judge 

Trial Court Cause No.

71D03-1607-F3-43

Bradford, Judge.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 71A03-1707-CR-1722 | December 15, 2017 Page 2 of 7

Case Summary

[1] On the evening of May 24, 2016, Jason Barksdale was shot while riding his 

bicycle in South Bend. As a result of being shot, Barksdale suffered serious 

injuries and his left leg had to be amputated. Barksdale identified AppellantDefendant Dequan Rainous Estelle as the individual who had shot him.

[2] Appellee-Plaintiff the State of Indiana (“the State”) subsequently charged 

Estelle with one count of Level 3 felony aggravated battery and one count of 

Level 5 felony battery by means of a deadly weapon. Estelle was found guilty 

as charged following a three-day jury trial. The trial court entered a judgment 

of conviction on the Level 3 felony aggravated battery charge. However, due to 

double jeopardy concerns, the trial court dismissed the Level 5 battery charge. 

On July 12, 2017, the trial court sentenced Estelle to a twelve-year executed 

term of imprisonment. 

[3] On appeal, Estelle challenges the sufficiency of the evidence to sustain his 

conviction for Level 3 felony aggravated battery. Specifically, Estelle argues 

that the evidence is insufficient to sustain the jury’s determination that he was 

the individual who shot Barksdale. Because we conclude otherwise, we affirm. 

Facts and Procedural History

[4] On the evening of May 24, 2016, nineteen-year-old Barksdale was riding his 

bicycle northbound along Wilber Street in South Bend. While riding his 

bicycle, he observed a car traveling southbound on Wilber Street. Barksdale 
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 71A03-1707-CR-1722 | December 15, 2017 Page 3 of 7

noticed that Tyaire Bryson was driving the car, Estelle was sitting in the front 

passenger seat, and Santori Dorsey was sitting in the backseat. Barksdale 

recognized the three men because they had all attended the same middle school.

[5] Upon seeing Dorsey, Barksdale made a hand gesture which communicated his 

disrespect for the Gangster Disciples gang. Barksdale believed that Dorsey was 

a member of Four Corner Hustler, a rival gang of the Gangster Disciples gang,

and thought “it was something that they two [of them] would agree on[.]” Tr. 

Vol. II, p. 62. Barksdale then continued on his way until “something told [him] 

to turn around.” Tr. Vol. II, p. 63. 

[6] When he turned around, Barksdale noticed that the car carrying Bryson, 

Estelle, and Dorsey had changed direction and was now following him. Bryson 

pulled up alongside Barksdale and, through the open front passenger-side 

window, asked Barskdale “[w]hat did you say?” Tr. Vol. II, p. 63. In reply, 

Barksdale “dropped [the disrespectful sign] again.” Tr. Vol. II, p. 64. Estelle 

then fired three shots at Barksdale before Bryson drove away from the scene.

[7] Soon thereafter, South Bend Police Officer Jarvier Bourne was dispatched to 

the scene of the shooting. By the time Officer Bourne arrived at the scene, a 

crowd had gathered around Barksdale, who was unconscious. Officer Bourne 

and others were eventually able to resuscitate Barksdale. After being 

resuscitated but before being transported to the hospital, Barksdale identified 

Estelle and Bryson as the responsible parties. 
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 71A03-1707-CR-1722 | December 15, 2017 Page 4 of 7

[8] Later that evening, Elkhart Police located the car that Bryson had been driving. 

Estelle’s school work was found in the car. In addition, two bullet casings were 

recovered from the car. The first was “located on the floorboard of the front 

passenger seat.” Tr. Vol. III, p. 58. The second was recovered from the track 

of the passenger seat. Investigating officers also recovered a third bullet casing 

from the scene of the shooting. 

[9] A few weeks later, on June 10, 2016, officers recovered a handgun from a car in 

which Dorsey was riding. Subsequent testing of the handgun revealed that the 

handgun was the gun that had been used in the May 24, 2016 shooting.

[10] In light of certain social media posts which depicted Estelle displaying the 

Gangster Disciples hand signal, Jennica Benitez believed that Estelle was a 

member of the gang. At some point after the shooting, Benitez, who had 

previously dated Estelle, called Estelle. During their ensuing conversation, 

Benitez asked Estelle “why he was out here shooting people[.]” Tr. Vol. III, p. 

15. Estelle replied that Barksdale had indicated disrespect for the Gangster 

Disciples by dropping the gang’s sign. Estelle also indicated that Barksdale 

“looked like he was fix’n to grab something from his waist so then [I] shot 

him.” Tr. Vol. III, p. 15.

[11] Due to the severity of his injuries, Barksdale remained hospitalized for just over 

one month. After being admitted to the hospital, Barksdale was placed in the 

Intensive Care Unit. He initially had to be fed through a tube because he could 

not eat. He suffered kidney failure and required dialysis and blood transfusions. 
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 71A03-1707-CR-1722 | December 15, 2017 Page 5 of 7

He also required a bowel reconstruction surgery. In addition, because a bullet 

hit the main artery in his leg, Barksdale’s left leg had to be amputated. Also, as 

of the date that Barksdale testified at Estelle’s trial, there was still a bullet 

lodged in his pelvis. 

[12] On July 28, 2016, the State charged Estelle with one count of Level 3 felony 

aggravated battery and one count of Level 5 felony battery by means of a deadly 

weapon. A jury trial commenced on May 30, 2017. During trial, Barksdale 

testified that he was “110 percent” sure that Estelle was the individual who had 

shot him. Tr. Vol. II, p. 73. Also during trial, Benitez testified that Estelle had 

admitted to her that he had shot Barksdale. On June 1, 2017, the jury found 

Estelle guilty as charged. The trial court entered a judgment of conviction on 

the Level 3 felony aggravated battery charge. However, due to double jeopardy 

concerns, the trial court dismissed the Level 5 battery charge. On July 12, 

2017, the trial court sentenced Estelle to a twelve-year executed term of 

imprisonment. This appeal follows.

Discussion and Decision

[13] Estelle contends that the evidence is sufficient to sustain his conviction for 

Level 3 felony aggravated battery. Specifically, Estelle argues that the evidence 

is insufficient to prove that he was the individual who shot Barksdale. 

When reviewing the sufficiency of the evidence to support a 

conviction, appellate courts must consider only the probative 

evidence and reasonable inferences supporting the verdict. It is 

the fact-finder’s role, not that of appellate courts, to assess 
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 71A03-1707-CR-1722 | December 15, 2017 Page 6 of 7

witness credibility and weigh the evidence to determine whether 

it is sufficient to support a conviction. To preserve this structure, 

when appellate courts are confronted with conflicting evidence, 

they must consider it most favorably to the trial court’s ruling. 

Appellate courts affirm the conviction unless no reasonable factfinder could find the elements of the crime proven beyond a 

reasonable doubt. It is therefore 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.

Drane v. State, 867 N.E.2d 144, 146–47 (Ind. 2007) (citations, emphasis, and 

quotations omitted). “In essence, we assess only whether the verdict could be 

reached based on reasonable inferences that may be drawn from the evidence 

presented.” Baker v. State, 968 N.E.2d 227, 229 (Ind. 2012) (emphasis in 

original). Upon review, appellate courts do not reweigh the evidence or assess 

the credibility of the witnesses. Stewart v. State, 768 N.E.2d 433, 435 (Ind. 

2002).

[14] In order to prove that Estelle committed Level 3 felony aggravated battery, the 

State was required to prove that Estelle “knowingly or intentionally inflict[ed] 

injury on a person that create[d] a substantial risk of death or cause[d] ... 

protracted loss or impairment of the function of a bodily member or organ.” 

Ind. Code § 35-42-1-1.5. Estelle does not dispute on appeal that Barksdale was 

shot by a gun or that as a result of being shot, Barksdale suffered loss of a bodily 

organ as his left leg had to be amputated. Estelle merely challenges the 

sufficiency of the evidence to prove his identity as the shooter. 
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 71A03-1707-CR-1722 | December 15, 2017 Page 7 of 7

[15] Review of the record reveals that Barksdale has consistently identified Estelle as 

the shooter. On the night of the shooting, after Officer Bourne had arrived on 

the scene and resuscitated Barksdale, Barksdale indicated that Estelle and 

Bryson had “done this to him.” Tr. Vol. II, p. 33. At trial, Barksdale 

consistently identified Estelle as the shooter, stating that he was “110 percent” 

sure that Estelle was the person who shot him. Tr. Vol. II, p. 73. In addition to 

Barksdale’s identification of Estelle as the shooter, Estelle admitted to Benitez 

that he had shot Barksdale. 

[16] Upon review, we conclude that the testimony of Officer Bourne, Barksdale, and 

Benitez is sufficient to sustain the jury’s determination that Estelle was the 

individual who shot Barksdale. Estelle’s argument to the contrary amounts to 

nothing more than an invitation for this court to reweigh the evidence, which 

we will not do. See Stewart, 768 N.E.2d 433, 435. Accordingly, we affirm 

Estelle’s conviction for Level 3 aggravated battery.

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

Robb, J., and Crone, J., concur.