Garold E. Colinot v. State of Indiana (mem. dec.)

MEMORANDUM DECISION
Pursuant to Ind. Appellate Rule 65(D),
this Memorandum Decision shall not be FILED
regarded as precedent or cited before any Jun 29 2017, 9:12 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
Adam C. James Curtis T. Hill, Jr.
Shelbyville, Indiana Attorney General of Indiana
Tyler G. Banks
Deputy Attorney General
Indianapolis, Indiana
IN THE
COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA
Garold E. Colinot, June 29, 2017
Appellant-Defendant, Court of Appeals Case No.
70A01-1611-CR-2754
v. Appeal from the Rush Circuit
Court
State of Indiana, The Honorable David E. Northam,
Appellee-Plaintiff. Judge
Trial Court Cause No.
70C01-1511-F6-703
Mathias, Judge.
[1] Garold E. Colinot (“Colinot”) was convicted in Rush Circuit Court of Level 5
felony battery resulting in serious bodily injury. Colinot was ordered to serve a
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 70A01-1611-CR-2754 | June 29, 2017 Page 1 of 7
three-year sentence with two years executed in the Department of Correction.
Colinot presents two issues on appeal:
I. Whether the evidence presented at the jury trial was sufficient to
support his conviction; and
II. Whether the trial court’s admission of Woods’ medical records
evidence that erroneously named the defendant on the accompanying
affidavit constituted fundamental error.
[2] We affirm.
Facts and Procedural History
[3] On November 20, 2015, Colinot joined Garrick Fitch (“Fitch”) and Tommy
Woods (“Woods”) at the home of Fitch’s father (“Mr. Fitch”). Colinot knew
Fitch and his father because he drove the elderly Mr. Fitch when needed and
assisted with tasks on his property. Woods was Fitch’s friend and Colinot’s
acquaintance.
[4] Earlier that day, Fitch and Woods had cleared Mr. Fitch’s backyard of scrap
wood and lit a bonfire. When Colinot arrived, the men had finished clearing the
yard and were drinking alcohol and cooking around the fire. At some point
after dark, Colinot threw more wood on the fire, causing an ember to fall near
Woods. Woods responded with a comment that angered Colinot. Colinot
pushed Woods into the fire and pinned him down by placing his knee on
Woods’ back until Fitch intervened. Fitch struck Colinot several times before
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 70A01-1611-CR-2754 | June 29, 2017 Page 2 of 7
Colinot rolled off Woods and Woods was able to get out of the fire. Colinot left
the property, and Fitch and Woods went inside Mr. Fitch’s house.
[5] Woods received medical attention the next day, November 21, 2015, when his
stepmother (“Mrs. Woods”) called an ambulance and he was transported to
Hancock Regional Hospital. Woods suffered burns to his right hand, bilateral
lower extremities, and right foot. During several stays at the hospital in
November and December, Woods underwent skin graft surgery to his hand and
foot and was treated for pain.
[6] Mrs. Woods also contacted the Rush County Sheriff’s Department. Deputy
Sheriff Steve Houston briefly interviewed Woods at the hospital, but it was
Lieutenant Terry Drake (“Lieutenant Drake”) who followed up on the report.
On November 24, 2015, Lieutenant Drake interviewed Mrs. Woods and Fitch,
observed the crime scene, and arrested Colinot for the battery of Woods.
Colinot gave a videotaped statement at the Rush County Sheriff’s Department
in which he recounted being hit on the head and unintentionally falling with
Woods into the fire.
[7] On November 25, 2015, Colinot was charged with Level 6 felony battery
resulting in moderate bodily injury and Level 5 felony battery resulting in
serious bodily injury.
[8] A jury trial was held in October 2016. At trial, Fitch and Woods identified
Colinot as Woods’ attacker. Their testimonies were inconsistent concerning
several details of what happened before and after the battery, but both men
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 70A01-1611-CR-2754 | June 29, 2017 Page 3 of 7
were consistent in their description of how Colinot forced Woods into the fire.
Fitch, Woods, and Colinot also provided varied accounts of how much alcohol
they consumed that night.
[9] During trial, the trial court admitted Woods’ medical records into evidence
without objection. Ex. Vol. 1, State’s Ex. 6. The first page of the document was
a certification and affidavit signed by a representative of Health Information
Management of Healthport. It mistakenly listed the patient’s name as Colinot
instead of Woods. Woods’s name appeared throughout the rest of the exhibit.
[10] The jury found Colinot guilty of Level 6 battery resulting in moderate bodily
injury and Level 5 battery resulting in serious bodily injury. The trial court
entered a judgment of conviction on the Level 5 battery charge. Colinot’s
sentencing hearing was held on November 1, 2016, and he was ordered to serve
a three-year sentence with two years executed in the Department of Correction.
Colinot now appeals.
Discussion and Decision
I. Sufficiency of the Evidence
[11] Colinot argues insufficient evidence was presented to support his conviction for
Level 5 felony battery resulting in serious bodily injury. The standard of review
for sufficiency of evidence claims is well-settled. The Court does not put itself in
the role of the trier of fact and reweigh the evidence or judge the credibility of
the witnesses. McHenry v. State, 820 N.E.2d 124, 126 (Ind. 2006). A conviction
will be affirmed if any reasonable juror could find a defendant guilty beyond a
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 70A01-1611-CR-2754 | June 29, 2017 Page 4 of 7
reasonable doubt when considering all the facts and inferences in favor of the
conviction. Henley v. State, 881 N.E.2d 639, 652 (Ind. 2008). It is the trier of fact
who is tasked with determining the weight of the evidence and witness
credibility; jurors are empowered to believe what they wish about witness
testimony. Klaff v. State, 884 N.E.2d 272, 274 (Ind. Ct. App. 2008).
[12] To convict a defendant of battery resulting in serious bodily injury, the State
must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that a defendant knowingly or
intentionally touched another person in a rude, insolent, or angry manner and
serious bodily injury resulted. Ind. Code § 35-42-2-1(b)(1) - 1(f)(1). Colinot
argues the evidence presented to the jury lacked probative value because
Woods’ testimony was inconsistent with Fitch’s and was therefore insufficient
to support his conviction. Appellant’s Br. at 9.
[13] Woods identified Colinot as the individual who forced him into the fire. Tr. p.
50. He described seeing Colinot out of the corner of his eye before he was
pushed into the fire by Colinot. Tr. p. 50. Fitch’s testimony corroborated
Woods’ account: “[Woods] was laid out across three big logs and [Colinot] was
on top of him.” Tr. p. 20. Colinot cites to inconsistent testimony by Woods and
Fitch concerning details of what happened before and after the incident, and
attributes the inconsistencies to the fact that the men were drinking alcohol.
Appellant’s Br. at 11. However, the fact that Woods and Fitch were drinking
was submitted to the jury in order that it could assess witness credibility and
this Court will not retry the trier of fact’s assessment thereof. See Bailey v. State,
979 N.E.2d 133, 143 (Ind. 2012). Moreover, inconsistencies in Fitch’s and
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 70A01-1611-CR-2754 | June 29, 2017 Page 5 of 7
Woods’s testimony concerned tangential details of the incident. Appellant’s Br.
at 11. Colinot requests this Court reweigh the evidence, which we will not do.
For all of these reasons, Colinot’s conviction for Level 5 battery resulting in
serious bodily injury was supported by sufficient evidence.
II. Fundamental Error
[14] Colinot argues the trial court’s admission of State’s Exhibit Six constituted
fundamental error. Because Colinot did not object to the admission of State’s
Exhibit Six, he waived the issue. See Jewell v. State, 887 N.E.2d 939, 942 (Ind.
2008). To qualify as fundamental error, an erroneous admission of evidence
must constitute a blatant violation of basic principles, cause harm or substantial
potential for harm, and result in a denial of fundamental due process. Gordon v.
State, 981 N.E.2d 1215, 1218 (Ind. Ct. App. 2013).
[15] The error complained of in State’s Exhibit Six – Woods’s medical records –
appears to be a simple scrivener’s error. The medical records affidavit twice
indicates that the document contains the medical records for “patient
[Colinot],” but the medical records actually belong to Woods and reference his
name throughout. Ex. Vol. I, State’s Ex. 6. Colinot does not describe how this
error may have been prejudicial to his rights. Accordingly, Colinot has not
established that he did not receive a fair trial due to a fundamental error of the
trial court.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 70A01-1611-CR-2754 | June 29, 2017 Page 6 of 7
Conclusion
[16] We conclude that Colinot’s conviction was supported by sufficient evidence.
[17] Affirmed.
Kirsh, J., and Altice, J., concur.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 70A01-1611-CR-2754 | June 29, 2017 Page 7 of 7