Schuyler Stewart v. State of Indiana (mem. dec.) ( 2016 )

MEMORANDUM DECISION
FILED
Pursuant to Ind. Appellate Rule 65(D), Apr 19 2016, 8:25 am
this Memorandum Decision shall not be CLERK
regarded as precedent or cited before any Indiana Supreme Court
Court of Appeals
and Tax Court
court except for the purpose of establishing
the defense of res judicata, collateral
estoppel, or the law of the case.
ATTORNEY FOR APPELLANT ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE
Ellen M. O’Connor Gregory F. Zoeller
Marion County Public Defender Agency Attorney General of Indiana
Indianapolis, Indiana
Tyler G. Banks
Deputy Attorney General
Indianapolis, Indiana
IN THE
COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA
Schuyler Stewart, April 19, 2016
Appellant-Defendant, Court of Appeals Case No.
49A02-1509-CR-1446
v. Appeal from the Marion Superior
Court
State of Indiana, The Honorable David Hooper,
Appellee-Plaintiff Magistrate
Trial Court Cause No.
49G01-1407-CM-34061
Baker, Judge.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 49A02-1509-CR-1446 | April 19, 2016 Page 1 of 4
[1] Schuyler Stewart appeals his conviction for Pointing a Firearm at Another
Person, a class A misdemeanor.1 Stewart argues that the evidence is insufficient
to support the conviction. Finding the evidence sufficient, we affirm.
Facts
[2] At some time between one and three in the morning on June 9, 2014, Gilbert
Buford and his daughter, Monica Buford, went to Stewart’s home. Stewart and
Monica were in an “on and off” relationship, tr. p. 8-9, and Monica had asked
her father to help her get her cell phone back from Stewart earlier that night.
Gilbert knocked on the door, and when Stewart answered, Gilbert asked him to
return the cell phone. Stewart responded that he did not have the phone, and at
that point raised a firearm and pointed it in the direction of Gilbert and Monica.
Tr. p. 6-7. At trial, Gilbert testified that the firearm looked like a semi-
automatic and could not have been anything other than a firearm. Tr. p. 7.
After Stewart pointed the firearm toward them, Gilbert and Monica left the
scene.
[3] On July 11, 2014, the State charged Stewart with Pointing a Firearm at Another
Person, a class A misdemeanor. His bench trial took place on August 28, 2015.
The trial court found him guilty as charged, and sentenced him to 365 days,
with 60 days executed and 305 days suspended. Stewart now appeals.
1
Ind. Code § 35-47-4-3(b).
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 49A02-1509-CR-1446 | April 19, 2016 Page 2 of 4
Discussion and Decision
[4] The sole argument that Stewart raises on appeal is that there is insufficient
evidence to support his conviction. To convict Stewart of this offense, the State
was required to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Stewart “knowingly or
intentionally” pointed a firearm at Gilbert or Monica. I.C. § 35-47-4-3(b). Our
standard of review for sufficiency of the evidence is well settled:
We neither reweigh the evidence nor judge the credibility of
witnesses. Instead, we consider the evidence most favorable to
the verdict and all reasonable inferences to be drawn therefrom.
If the evidence and inferences provide substantial evidence of
probative value to support the verdict, we affirm.
Rodriguez v. State, 714 N.E.2d 667, 670 (Ind. Ct. App. 1999) (internal citations
omitted). Further, “the uncorroborated testimony of one witness may be
sufficient by itself to sustain a conviction on appeal.” Toney v. State, 715 N.E.2d
367, 369 (Ind. 1999).
[5] In support of his argument, Stewart contends that the evidence is insufficient
because no gun was admitted into evidence, Gilbert did not remember the
firearm’s color, and Gilbert did not see the firearm up close or handle it.
Appellant’s Br. p. 6. Stewart also argues that Gilbert “did not testify about the
lighting or the distance between the men which would have impacted his
opportunity to observe” and that Gilbert’s “bias against [him] was evident.” Id.
at 8.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 49A02-1509-CR-1446 | April 19, 2016 Page 3 of 4
[6] However, Stewart’s claims amount to a request for this Court to reweigh the
evidence and assess the credibility of the witness. This is the province of the
factfinder, who deemed Gilbert’s testimony credible. Gilbert testified
unequivocally that Stewart pointed a firearm in Gilbert’s direction. Based upon
this testimony, a reasonable factfinder could find that Stewart knowingly or
intentionally pointed a firearm at Gilbert and Monica. Considering the
evidence in the light most favorable to the trial court’s ruling, we find the
evidence sufficient to sustain the verdict.
[7] The judgment of the trial court is affirmed.
May, J., and Brown, J., concur.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 49A02-1509-CR-1446 | April 19, 2016 Page 4 of 4