Antonio R. Jones v. State of Indiana (mem. dec.) ( 2020 )

MEMORANDUM DECISION
Pursuant to Ind. Appellate Rule 65(D), this
Memorandum Decision shall not be FILED
regarded as precedent or cited before any Dec 09 2020, 8:50 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
Timothy J. O’Connor Curtis T. Hill, Jr.
Indianapolis, Indiana Attorney General of Indiana
Conner R. Dickerson
Deputy Attorney General
Indianapolis, Indiana
IN THE
COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA
Antonio R. Jones, December 9, 2020
Appellant-Defendant, Court of Appeals Case No.
20A-CR-771
v. Appeal from the Marion Superior
Court
State of Indiana, The Honorable Mark D. Stoner,
Appellee-Plaintiff Judge
Trial Court Cause No.
49G06-1808-MR-26095
Altice, Judge.
Case Summary
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 20A-CR-771 | December 9, 2020 Page 1 of 7
[1] Following a bench trial, Antonio R. Jones appeals his conviction for murder, a
felony. His sole claim is that the State failed to sufficiently rebut his claim of
sudden heat and that, therefore, his conviction should be reduced to voluntary
manslaughter, a Level 2 felony.
[2] We affirm.
Facts & Procedural History
[3] Christina Guerrero is Jones’s mother, and Roberto Cisneros, Guerreo’s
longtime boyfriend, is the victim in this case. Jones and Cisneros were also
friends. The three regularly spent time together.
[4] On the evening of August 5, 2018, they gathered at the home of Jennifer Reed
and David Ezell on Harlan Street in Indianapolis. Daniel Reed, Jennifer’s son
and Cisneros’s good friend, was also present. The group socialized and played
video games, and some of them – including Guerrero, Cisneros, and Jones –
used methamphetamine. All appeared to be in good spirits that night, except
Guerrero and Cisneros were bickering with each other throughout, which was
not uncommon for them. She was argumentative with Cisneros, who appeared
agitated and expressed a desire to go home several times.
[5] At some point, several members of the group left and went to Cisneros’s
cousin’s home. They all returned a short while later. Guerrero remained in her
car, as everyone else went back inside the Harlan Street residence. Guerrero
eventually called Jennifer’s phone after 1:00 a.m. Cisneros told Jennifer not to
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 20A-CR-771 | December 9, 2020 Page 2 of 7
answer and stated, “I know what she wants…. I’ll go out there in a minute, and
we’ll go to the gas station.” Transcript Vol. II at 48. After he went out to the
car, he and Guerrero began arguing loudly. From inside the residence, Jennifer
could hear Guerrero yell several times, “you’re jealous of my son.” Id. at 49.
[6] A few minutes later, while the argument continued inside the car, Guerrero
called Jennifer and asked her to send out Jones to leave. Seemingly frustrated,
Jones gathered his belongings with the help of Daniel. Jones carried his bag
and rifle 1 and got into the backseat of the car behind Guerrero, who was in the
driver seat. Cisneros was in the front passenger seat. Daniel placed Jones’s
gaming console in the trunk and then turned to walk toward the house, where
Jennifer stood in the doorway.
[7] Cisneros turned around to face Jones and yelled at him, in a “high-pitched
pissed off voice,” to get out of the car. Id. at 86. Jones then proceeded to raise
his rifle and begin shooting Cisneros. Daniel and Jennifer screamed for Jones
to stop shooting. Jones paused for a brief second, and then shot again. In all,
Cisneros was struck five times with gunshots, including to the left side of his
back, the side of his chest, his neck, his right arm, and his left hand.
[8] Guerrero exited the car and ran to open the passenger door, as Cisneros
stumbled out and fell face down to the ground in a puddle of blood about
1
Jones commonly carried a pistol with him, but he had obtained this rifle in the last week. No one else was
armed that night.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 20A-CR-771 | December 9, 2020 Page 3 of 7
twenty feet away. Guerrero repeatedly cried to Jones, exclaiming that he hurt
Cisneros and asking why he did it. Jones replied, “F*ck that n*gga.” Id. at 53.
As he held the rifle at his side, Jones screamed at Guerrero, “Quit hollering my
name out loud.” Id. at 31. He ordered her back into the car, and they then
sped away. Ezell and Daniel began CPR on Cisneros, as Jennifer called 911.
Cisneros died from his injuries. Jennifer and Ezell spoke with officers at the
scene but did not initially identify Jones as the shooter, as they feared
retaliation. Hours later, however, they identified him.
[9] On August 9, 2019, the State charged Jones with murder, and he was arrested
about two weeks later. Jones provided a voluntary statement to police, in
which he indicated that he never owned a rifle and that a man named Fish or
Blackfish shot Cisneros from outside the car that night.
[10] Jones waived his right to a jury trial, and the bench trial was held over two days
in February 2020. David, Jennifer, and Ezell testified as eyewitnesses for the
State. Jones testified in his own defense and admitted to shooting and killing
Cisneros. Jones claimed that during the argument Cisneros reached back for
the rifle on Jones’s lap and then they “tussled for it for a little bit.” Id. at 211.
Jones testified that he was “[t]errified” when he pulled the trigger and that he
did not remember pulling it multiple times. Id. at 212. Guerrero did not testify.
[11] The trial court found Jones guilty of murder. The court expressly rejected
Jones’s claim that he acted under sudden heat, finding “[his] story not
credible.” Id. at 237. The court explained in part:
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 20A-CR-771 | December 9, 2020 Page 4 of 7
Defendant said there was a struggle over the gun and the gun
went off. He didn’t say I intended to shoot him. He said the gun
went off. And didn’t even own up to a shooting, an intentional
shooting. The Court has to bear that in mind after the [sic]
defendant’s version is that after fleeing from the scene after
shooting his friend after hiding out, after lying to the police, and
then trying to tell an entirely different story on the stand, that
he’s credible; and the Court doesn’t find that he is credible. No
one will really know what happened other than [those] in the
car…. But, and it’s the most likely explanation as far as the Court
is concerned is that I just simply have a young man that’s riding
around with a gun that’s loaded, carrying it wherever he is, and
has methamphetamine and does something stupid. And
voluntary intoxication is not a defense to doing something
stupid. It’s not a defense to murder.
Id. at 237. Thereafter, on March 4, 2020, the trial court sentenced Jones to
fifty-eight years in the Indiana Department of Correction. Jones now appeals.
Discussion & Decision
[12] Relying on his own testimony, Jones argues that the State failed to rebut the
evidence he presented of sudden heat. Specifically, he notes that when he
entered the car, “his mother and her angry, drug-addled, boyfriend, Roberto
Cisneros, where [sic] arguing.” Appellant’s Brief at 8. Cisneros, according to
Jones, reached for the rifle, which caused Jones to become terrified and shoot
him. The difficulty with Jones’s appellate argument is that the trial court found
his self-serving testimony to be incredible.
[13] It is well established that we cannot reweigh evidence or assess witness
credibility when reviewing the sufficiency of the evidence, as those matters are
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 20A-CR-771 | December 9, 2020 Page 5 of 7
reserved exclusively for the trier of fact. See Brantley v. State, 91 N.E.3d 566, 570
(Ind. 2018), cert. denied (2019). Thus, we consider only the evidence and
reasonable inferences supporting the conviction and will affirm if probative
evidence supports each element of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt. Id.[14] Sudden heat is a mitigating factor that reduces what otherwise would be murder
to voluntary manslaughter. See Ind. Code § 35-42-1-3. “Sudden heat exists
when a defendant is ‘provoked by anger, rage, resentment, or terror, to a degree
sufficient to obscure the reason of an ordinary person, prevent deliberation and
premeditation, and render the defendant incapable of cool reflection.’”
Brantley, 91 N.E.3d at 572 (quoting Isom v. State, 31 N.E.3d 469, 486 (Ind. 2015)
(internal citation omitted)). “[O]nce the issue of sudden heat has been injected
into the case, the burden is on the State to negate its existence.” Bane v. State,
587 N.E.2d 97, 100 (Ind. 1992). It is then up to the trier of fact to decide
whether the evidence constitutes sudden heat sufficient to warrant a conviction
for voluntary manslaughter. Brantley, 91 N.E.3d at 572.
[15] Here, the evidence favorable to the conviction reveals that Jones entered the car
with a loaded rifle during an ongoing argument between his mother and
Cisneros. When Cisneros angrily began yelling at Jones and demanded that he
get out of the car, Jones raised the rifle and started shooting Cisneros, who was
unarmed. Jennifer and Daniel screamed from outside for him to stop shooting.
Jones paused momentarily and then shot Cisneros again. Cisneros was shot by
Jones a total of five times, including in the back. Immediately after the
shooting, Guerrero hurried out of the car and pleaded with Jones to tell her
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 20A-CR-771 | December 9, 2020 Page 6 of 7
why he hurt Cisneros, to which Jones responded, “F*ck that n*gga.” Transcript
Vol. II at 53. Jones also demanded that Guerrero stop saying his name out loud
and that she get back in the car. The two then sped away as others ran to
Cisneros’s aid.
[16] It was well within the trial court’s province, as trier of fact, to consider whether
Jones experienced terror and had the sudden impetus to kill. See Brantley, 91
N.E.3d at 572. Indeed, “[e]xistence of sudden heat is a classic question of
fact[.]” Fisher v. State, 671 N.E.2d 119, 121 (Ind. 1996). Further, it was the trial
court’s job to assess Jones’s credibility and determine, in light of the evidence
presented, whether to believe Jones’s story. See Brantley, 91 N.E.3d at 573
(citing Harris v. State, 382 N.E.2d 913, 915 (Ind. 1978) (finding a jury must
consider the parties’ viewpoints and relevant facts, but it is not required to
believe one side’s evidence)). The trial court did not believe Jones, and we will
not second guess that decision. Based on the evidence, including that Jones
fired several shots and continued firing after a brief pause despite pleas from
friends at the scene for him to stop, the trial court reasonably could have found
Jones guilty of murder beyond a reasonable doubt.
[17] Judgment affirmed.
Mathias, J. and Weissmann, J., concur.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 20A-CR-771 | December 9, 2020 Page 7 of 7