Kathleen Rexroat v. State of Indiana (mem. dec.) ( 2019 )

MEMORANDUM DECISION
Pursuant to Ind. Appellate Rule 65(D),
this Memorandum Decision shall not be FILED
regarded as precedent or cited before any Jul 08 2019, 10:46 am
court except for the purpose of establishing
CLERK
the defense of res judicata, collateral Indiana Supreme Court
Court of Appeals
estoppel, or the law of the case. and Tax Court
ATTORNEY FOR APPELLANT ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE
Darren Bedwell Curtis T. Hill, Jr.
Indianapolis, Indiana Attorney General of Indiana
Benjamin J. Shoptaw
Deputy Attorney General
Indianapolis, Indiana
IN THE
COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA
Kathleen Rexroat, July 8, 2019
Appellant-Defendant, Court of Appeals Case No.
19A-CR-28
v. Appeal from the Marion Superior
Court
State of Indiana, The Honorable Amy M. Jones,
Appellee-Plaintiff Judge
The Honorable Jason Reyome,
Magistrate
Trial Court Cause No.
49G08-1805-CM-14988
Altice, Judge.
Case Summary
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 19A-CR-28 | July 8, 2019 Page 1 of 4
[1] Kathleen Rexroat appeals her conviction for criminal mischief as a Class A
misdemeanor. She contends that the State failed to present sufficient evidence
that the pecuniary loss to the victim amounted to at least $750.
[2] We affirm.
Facts & Procedural History
[3] In April 2018, Rodney Smith owned a home in which he lived with Rexroat’s
mother, Debra, and uncle, Robert. Rexroat had lived in the home also but
moved out due to “some things that were going on with her and her boyfriend”.
Transcript at 6. When she moved out, Rexroat left some personal items behind.
[4] On the afternoon of April 22, 2018, Rexroat drove to Smith’s home to retrieve
her belongings, which Debra had put out on the sidewalk. Rexroat parked in
front of the home and loaded her things into her vehicle. Rexroat then “peeled
out from in front of the house” and turned the corner, heading to the alley
behind the home. Id. Robert, who had been watching from inside, ran out of
the house and toward the detached garage in the back. As he rounded the
corner of the garage, Robert heard a “thud” and then looked up to see
Rexroat’s vehicle “right in the driveway with the back end of her car right in
line with the overhead garage door.” Id. at 13. Rexroat then yelled out the
window at Robert as she pulled away.
[5] Immediately thereafter, Robert observed damage to several panels of the
overhead garage door, which had just recently been replaced. The newly
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 19A-CR-28 | July 8, 2019 Page 2 of 4
damaged panels were “pushed inward”, which “caused the sides of the garage
door to come loose from the track around the garage.” Id. at 10.
[6] The State charged Rexroat with criminal mischief as a Class A misdemeanor,
alleging that the resulting pecuniary loss to Smith was at least $750. At the
bench trial on December 6, 2018, the State submitted photographs of the
damaged garage door into evidence. Both Smith and Robert testified that this
damage did not exist prior to the events in question. Further, Smith testified
that he had obtained an estimate for the cost to repair his garage door in the
amount of $1100.
[7] The trial court found Rexroat guilty as charged and sentenced her to 180 days
in jail, all suspended to probation. Rexroat now appeals, challenging the
sufficiency of the evidence.
Discussion & Decision
[8] “Convictions should be affirmed unless no reasonable fact-finder could find the
elements of the crime proven beyond a reasonable doubt.” T.H. v. State, 92
N.E.3d 624, 626 (Ind. 2018). Further, it is well established that when reviewing
the sufficiency of the evidence on appeal, we must consider only the probative
evidence and reasonable inferences supporting the conviction, and we should
not assess witness credibility or weigh the evidence. See Moore v. State, 27
N.E.3d749, 754 (Ind. 2015).
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 19A-CR-28 | July 8, 2019 Page 3 of 4
[9] Rexroat’s sole argument on appeal is that the State failed to establish that the
amount of loss was at least $750. 1 In other words, Rexroat does not dispute
that she damaged Smith’s overhead garage door by purposefully driving into it.
Her claim is simply that Smith’s testimony that he obtained a repair estimate of
$1100 for the garage door was insufficient to establish the amount of loss.
[10] We reject Rexroat’s blatant invitation to reweigh the evidence. Smith testified
that he obtained an estimate for repairs to his overhead garage door. He
testified that the estimate was about $1100. Additionally, the State submitted
into evidence two pictures of the garage door, which showed significant
damage. Based on the evidence presented, a reasonable fact-finder could find
the element of loss of at least $750 proven beyond a reasonable doubt. 2
[11] Judgment affirmed.
Kirsch, J. and Vaidik, C.J., concur.
1
Criminal mischief is a Class A misdemeanor if the pecuniary loss to the victim is at least $750. See Ind.
Code § 35-43-1-2(a)(1). If the amount of loss is less than $750 or not established, however, the offense is a
Class B misdemeanor. I.C. § 35-43-1-2(a).
2
Rexroat’s reliance on T.H., 92 N.E.3d 624, is misplaced. In that case, the victim did not testify regarding
how much the repairs to her car cost her or the amount of any estimates. Rather, the only evidence admitted
with respect to the amount of pecuniary loss was an estimate that, according to our Supreme Court, had
“multiple unexplained anomalies”. Id. at 626. Based on the obviously fraudulent estimate, which was the
only evidence of loss, the Court found that “no reasonable fact-finder could find the element of loss of at least
$750 proven beyond a reasonable doubt.” Id.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 19A-CR-28 | July 8, 2019 Page 4 of 4