Daniel Scott Kring v. State of Indiana (mem. dec.) ( 2017 )

MEMORANDUM DECISION
Pursuant to Ind. Appellate Rule 65(D),
this Memorandum Decision shall not be FILED
regarded as precedent or cited before any Dec 21 2017, 11:10 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
Donald J. Berger Curtis T. Hill, Jr.
Law Office of Donald J. Berger Attorney General of Indiana
South Bend, Indiana
Monika Prekopa Talbot
Supervising Deputy Attorney
General
Indianapolis, Indiana
IN THE
COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA
Daniel Scott Kring, December 21, 2017
Appellant-Defendant, Court of Appeals Case No.
71A05-1706-CR-1364
v. Appeal from the St. Joseph
Superior Court
State of Indiana, The Honorable John M.
Appellee-Plaintiff Marnocha, Judge
Trial Court Cause No.
71D02-1701-F5-000006
Vaidik, Chief Judge.
[1] Daniel Kring appeals his conviction for the robbery of a Speedway store in
South Bend. He does not dispute that the store was robbed; he contends only
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 71A05-1706-CR-1364 | December 21, 2017 Page 1 of 2
that the State failed to present sufficient evidence to prove beyond a reasonable
doubt that he committed the robbery. We disagree. The State’s evidence was
easily sufficient to identify Kring as the robber. Most notably, Kring’s co-
defendant and getaway driver, Charles Hirsch, testified that Kring committed
the robbery, and the two women who were working in the store at the time of
the robbery took the stand and specifically identified Kring as the robber. Kring
contends that Hirsch should not be believed because he was testifying pursuant
to a plea agreement; he also points out that one of the workers testified that the
robber’s jacket had a skull or an alien on the back, whereas Kring’s jacket had
Al Pacino as Scarface on the back. Setting aside the fact that Kring does not
even mention the second worker’s testimony, these arguments go to the
credibility of the witnesses and the weight of evidence. Such matters are to be
determined by the fact-finder (here, a jury), not this Court. See Leonard v. State,
80 N.E.3d 878, 882 (Ind. 2017).
[2] Affirmed.
May, J., and Altice, J. concur.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 71A05-1706-CR-1364 | December 21, 2017 Page 2 of 2