Lance Miller 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 Sep 10 2019, 9:58 am
court except for the purpose of establishing CLERK
Indiana Supreme Court
the defense of res judicata, collateral Court of Appeals
and Tax Court
estoppel, or the law of the case.
ATTORNEY FOR APPELLANT ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE
Mark S. Lenyo Curtis T. Hill, Jr.
South Bend, Indiana Attorney General of Indiana
Josiah Swinney
Deputy Attorney General
Indianapolis, Indiana
IN THE
COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA
Lance Miller, September 10, 2019
Appellant-Defendant, Court of Appeals Case No.
19A-CR-732
v. Appeal from the St. Joseph
Superior Court
State of Indiana, The Honorable Margot F. Reagan,
Appellee-Plaintiff Judge
The Honorable Keith Doi,
Magistrate
Trial Court Cause No.
71D04-1806-CM-2289
Altice, Judge.
Case Summary
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 19A-CR-732 | September 10, 2019 Page 1 of 5
[1] Lance Miller appeals his conviction, following a bench trial, for Class A
misdemeanor battery resulting in bodily injury. His sole challenge is to the
sufficiency of the evidence.
[2] We affirm.
Facts & Procedural History
[3] Miller’s mother, Debra Schmidt, owns property in rural St. Joseph County.
Miller lived in the home on that property and kept belongings, including a
motorcycle, in a detached garage. At some point prior to May 27, 2018, Debra
and her husband Rodney Schmidt, Miller’s longtime stepfather, asked Miller to
move off the property because Miller had not been keeping it up or paying the
utility bills. Miller refused.
[4] On May 27, 2018, Debra and Rodney went to the property, where they also
kept a camper, and worked on cleaning out the garage. They pulled everything
out of the garage to power wash the inside. This included pushing out Miller’s
motorcycle, which they covered with plastic while it sat outside. After power
washing, Debra, Rodney, and a friend sat in folding chairs in front of the
camper drinking beer.
[5] While they were sitting outside that afternoon, Miller and his father and brother
pulled into the driveway, and Miller exited the vehicle to go into the home to
feed cats inside. When Miller observed that items had been pulled out of the
garage, he became angry. Debra stood up and Rodney remained in his chair, as
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 19A-CR-732 | September 10, 2019 Page 2 of 5
Miller walked toward them asking about his motorcycle. Miller then bypassed
Debra and ran toward Rodney. Miller head-butted Rodney in the face and then
punched him three or four times in the face and head. Rodney managed to get
Miller off of him, and Debra stepped in between the two. Rodney called 911,
and Miller left with his father and brother within five to ten minutes. As a
result of the attack, Rodney had a laceration on his nose, swelling around one
of his eyes, and a cut on his arm. Photographs were taken of these injuries once
officers arrived on the scene about an hour later.
[6] On July 3, 2018, the State charged Miller with Class A misdemeanor battery
resulting in bodily injury. Three witnesses testified at the short bench trial held
on March 14, 2019. Rodney testified for the State as detailed above. Miller and
his brother Levi testified for the defense. Miller and Levi acknowledged
coming onto the property while Debra and Rodney sat outside the camper.
They claimed, however, that although there was an exchange of words, there
was no physical confrontation between Miller and Rodney. At the conclusion
of the evidence, the trial court found Miller guilty, explaining:
Upon reviewing all the evidence that was presented and in
particular due to the physical evidence of the victim’s injuries as
depicted in Exhibits 3 and 4, that I find [Rodney’s] testimony to
be more credible under the circumstances, that those injuries are
consistent with what his testimony was that [Miller] headbutted
him and punched him and caused those particular injuries.
Transcript at 34. The trial court then sentenced Miller to a 30-day suspended
sentence and 180 days of reporting probation. Miller now appeals.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 19A-CR-732 | September 10, 2019 Page 3 of 5
Discussion & Decision
[7] “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.3d 749, 754 (Ind. 2015). The trier of fact is entitled to determine which
version of the incident to credit and is the sole judge of the effect that any
discrepancies or contradictions might have on the outcome of the case. Scott v.
State, 867 N.E.2d 690, 695 (Ind. Ct. App. 2007), trans. denied.
[8] On appeal, Miller does not dispute that Rodney’s testimony – if believed – was
sufficient to support his conviction. He simply contends that Rodney’s account,
which directly conflicted with Miller’s and Levi’s, was not credible because his
testimony was “inconsistent, unpersuasive, and wholly corroborated [sic] by
any other witness testifying at trial of this case.” Appellant’s Brief at 10. Miller
notes in this regard that (1) Rodney gave conflicting testimony regarding
whether Miller left immediately after the attack or went into the house for
several minutes before leaving; (2) Rodney testified that the chair in which he
was sitting collapsed during the attack but in the picture of the folding chair
(taken an hour later), the chair is upright with an intact beer sitting on the side
arm; and (3) Rodney’s testimony “lacked any detail or clarity.” Id. at 11.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 19A-CR-732 | September 10, 2019 Page 4 of 5
[9] We reject Miller’s blatant invitation for us to reassess Rodney’s credibility.
Miller made these same arguments to the trial court. The trial court rejected
Miller’s position and expressly found Rodney’s testimony more credible than
Miller’s and Levi’s, noting that Rodney’s injuries were consistent with his
account. This credibility determination was entirely within the province of the
trial court, and the conviction is, thus, supported by ample evidence. See Scott,
867 N.E.2d at 695.
[10] Judgment affirmed.
Brown, J. and Tavitas, J., concur.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 19A-CR-732 | September 10, 2019 Page 5 of 5