Donte Carter v. State of Indiana ( 2013 )

Pursuant to Ind. Appellate Rule 65(D), Jul 24 2013, 6:23 am
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: ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE:
BARBARA J. SIMMONS GREGORY F. ZOELLER
Oldenburg, Indiana Attorney General of Indiana
CHANDRA K. HEIN
Deputy Attorney General
Indianapolis, Indiana
IN THE
COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA
DONTE CARTER, )
)
Appellant-Defendant, )
)
vs. ) No. 49A02-1301-CR-10
)
STATE OF INDIANA, )
)
Appellee-Plaintiff. )
APPEAL FROM THE MARION SUPERIOR COURT
The Honorable Lisa F. Borges, Judge
The Honorable Stanley Kroh, Master Commissioner
Cause No. 49G04-1208-CM-59931
July 24, 2013
MEMORANDUM DECISION - NOT FOR PUBLICATION
DARDEN, Senior Judge
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Donte Carter appeals his conviction of battery on a law enforcement officer, a
Class A misdemeanor. Ind. Code § 35-42-2-1 (2012). We affirm.
ISSUE
Carter raises one issue, which we restate as: whether the State provided sufficient
evidence to negate Carter’s claim of self-defense.
FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY
On August 28, 2012, Carter was incarcerated in the Marion County Jail. Deputy
Shawn Middleton of the Marion County Sheriff’s Department was told to move Carter to
another section of the jail.
Middleton approached Carter with three other deputies. Middleton told Carter to
gather his personal items, but he refused. Next, as Middleton turned his head, Carter
punched him in the face. Several other deputies grabbed Carter and put him on the
ground. Carter continued to struggle, so Middleton tased him. The deputies were then
able to put Carter in handcuffs.
The State charged Carter with battery on a law enforcement officer. After a bench
trial, wherein several deputies testified that Carter, unprovoked, punched Middleton in
the face, the court determined he was guilty as charged. The court declined to enter a
sentence because Carter was already serving a lengthy sentence in the custody of the
Indiana Department of Correction. This appeal followed.
2
DISCUSSION AND DECISION
Carter does not dispute that the State proved all of the elements of the offense of
battery upon a law enforcement officer. Instead, he argues that he acted in self-defense.
A valid claim of defense of oneself or another person is legal justification for an
otherwise criminal act. Ind. Code § 35-41-3-2 (2012). When a claim of self-defense is
raised and finds support in the evidence, the State has the burden of negating at least one
of the necessary elements beyond a reasonable doubt. Wilson v. State, 770 N.E.2d 799,
800 (Ind. 2002). The standard of review for a challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence
to rebut a claim of self-defense is the same as the standard for any sufficiency of the
evidence claim. Id. at 801. We do not reweigh the evidence or judge the credibility of
the witnesses. Joslyn v. State, 942 N.E.2d 809, 811 (Ind. 2011). We consider only the
probative evidence and reasonable inferences drawn from the evidence that support the
judgment. Id. If a defendant is convicted despite a claim of self-defense, we reverse only
if no reasonable person could say that self-defense was negated by the State beyond a
reasonable doubt. Wilson, 770 N.E.2d at 800-01.
To prevail on a claim of self-defense, the defendant must present evidence that he:
(1) was in a place 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.
Tharpe v. State, 955 N.E.2d 836, 844 (Ind. Ct. App. 2011), trans. denied.
In this case, the evidence most favorable to the judgment establishes that Carter hit
Middleton in response to Middleton’s instruction to get his personal items. Thus, he
3
provoked, instigated, or participated willingly in the violence. Carter’s assertion that the
deputies attacked him first is a request to reweigh the evidence, which we cannot do.
Consequently, the State presented sufficient evidence to negate Carter’s claim of self-
defense. See id. at 845 (the State rebutted Tharpe’s claim of self-defense because the
evidence most favorable to the judgment established that Tharpe shot first at the police
officer).
CONCLUSION
For the reasons stated above, we affirm the judgment of the trial court.
Affirmed.
BAKER, J., and MAY, J., concur.
4