Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 45A05-1412-CR-600 | July 28, 2015 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

Marce Gonzalez, Jr.

Dyer, Indiana

ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE

Gregory F. Zoeller

Attorney General of Indiana

Tyler G. Banks

Deputy Attorney General

Indianapolis, Indiana

IN THE

COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA

Aqueeli Hakeem Walton,

Appellant-Defendant,

v.

State of Indiana,

Appellee-Plaintiff.

July 28, 2015

Court of Appeals Case No.

45A05-1412-CR-600

Appeal from the Lake County 

Superior Court;

The Honorable Salvador Vasquez, 

Judge;

45G01-1307-MR-8

May, Judge.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 45A05-1412-CR-600 | July 28, 2015 Page 2 of 4

[1] Aqueeli Hakeem Walton appeals his conviction of murder.1 Walton asserts the 

State did not disprove his claim of self-defense beyond a reasonable doubt. As 

there was sufficient evidence to disprove Walton’s claim, we affirm.

Facts and Procedural History

[2] In 2013, Walton and Cameron Sanders were friends who lived in the same 

neighborhood in Hammond, Indiana. Sanders was in a relationship with 

Walton’s sister Aaliyah. Aaliyah lived with Sanders and his family. Walton 

lived with his girlfriend, her child, and several other members of her family. 

[3] On July 21, 2013, Aaliyah and Sanders argued. Sanders fired a gun into the air. 

Aaliyah retreated from the argument with a bump on her head. Later that day, 

Sanders came to Walton’s house carrying a gas can. Walton followed Sanders 

into the house. Witnesses heard multiple shots fired from the house. Walton 

then fled. Sanders’ mother entered Walton’s house and found Sanders bleeding 

on the floor. Sanders died, and an autopsy revealed he had nine gunshot 

wounds.

[4] The State charged Walton with murder. Walton claimed he had shot Sanders 

in self-defense. The jury rejected Walton’s claim of self-defense and found him 

guilty. 

 

1 Ind. Code § 35-42-1-1 (2007).
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 45A05-1412-CR-600 | July 28, 2015 Page 3 of 4

Discussion and Decision

[5] The State disproved Walton’s claim of self-defense beyond a reasonable doubt. 

Our review of whether the State presented sufficient evidence to rebut a claim 

of self-defense is the same as that of any sufficiency of evidence claim. Miller v. 

State, 720 N.E.2d 696, 699 (Ind. 1999). We will not “reweigh the evidence or 

assess the credibility of witnesses but look solely to the evidence most favorable 

to the judgment with all reasonable inferences to be drawn therefrom.” Id. 

“We will affirm a conviction where such evidence and reasonable inferences 

constitute substantial evidence of probative value sufficient to support the 

judgment.” Id.

“[A] person (1) is justified in using deadly force; and (2) does not have a duty to 

retreat; if the person reasonably believes that that force is necessary to prevent 

serious bodily injury to the person[.]” Ind. Code § 35-41-3-2(c) (2013). To 

prevail on a claim of self-defense, Walton had to show he: (1) was where he had 

a right to be; (2) did not provoke, instigate, or participate willingly in the 

violence; and (3) had a reasonable fear of death or great bodily harm. See Brand 

v. State, 766 N.E.2d 772, 777 (Ind. Ct. App. 2002) (requirements of a selfdefense claim), trans. denied. The State has the burden of rebutting a claim of 

self-defense, and to do so, it must negate at least one of the three elements of a 

self-defense claim. Id. 

[6] Walton argues Sanders threatened him and “went for his gun.” (Tr. at 864.) 

However, the State presented evidence Sanders did not have a gun when he 
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 45A05-1412-CR-600 | July 28, 2015 Page 4 of 4

entered Walton’s house, and we may not reweigh the evidence. See Drane v. 

State, 867 N.E.2d 144, 146 (Ind. 2007) (appellate court cannot reweigh evidence 

or judge witness credibility). 

[7] The jury could also reasonably infer Walton did not act in self-defense because 

he shot Sanders nine times. “Firing multiple shots undercuts a claim of selfdefense.” Hood v. State, 877 N.E.2d 492, 497 (Ind. Ct. App. 2007), trans. denied.

[8] The evidence that Sanders was unarmed and Walton shot him nine times was

sufficient to negate Walton’s claim of self-defense. Accordingly, we affirm.

[9] Affirmed.

Robb, J., and Mathias, J., concur.