Vincent D. Quarles Jr. v. State of Indiana (mem. dec.)

MEMORANDUM DECISION
Jul 07 2015, 8:34 am
Pursuant to Ind. Appellate Rule 65(D), 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
Derick W. Steele Gregory F. Zoeller
Deputy Public Defender Attorney General of Indiana
Kokomo, Indiana
Michael Gene Worden
Deputy Attorney General
Indianapolis, Indiana
IN THE
COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA
Vincent D. Quarles Jr., July 7, 2015
Appellant-Defendant, Court of Appeals Case No.
34A02-1412-CR-871
v. Appeal from the Howard Circuit
Court
State of Indiana, The Honorable Lynn Murray, Judge
Cause No. 34C01-1209-MR-81
Appellee-Plaintiff.
Vaidik, Chief Judge.
Case Summary
[1] Vincent D. Quarles Jr. was convicted of Class B felony aggravated battery for
shooting a victim in the face during a group fight outside a bar in Kokomo,
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 34A02-1412-CR-871 | July 7, 2015 Page 1 of 6
Indiana. Quarles now appeals arguing that the State failed to rebut his claim of
self-defense. Although Quarles was not a part of the original fight, he willingly
became part of the fight when he retrieved a gun from a parked car and
followed the victim to his car and shot him in the face. Because the evidence is
sufficient to rebut Quarles’ self-defense claim, we affirm.
Facts and Procedural History
[2] The facts most favorable to the verdict reveal that in the early morning hours of
July 6, 2012, Debriel Scales, his cousin Durone Parker, and his sister Danielle
Scales left a strip club, and Danielle drove them to Rock Bottom Grill in
Kokomo to continue drinking. A surveillance camera at the front entrance of
the bar captured most of the events that unfolded. See Ex. 2 (surveillance
footage from Camera 1). Upon arrival, Debriel and Durone exited Danielle’s
car and walked toward the front entrance of the bar. Four men, including
Tyson Deckard, were standing outside the front entrance; Quarles was inside
the bar. Tr. p. 236. As Debriel and Durone walked past the group, Tyson came
up from behind Durone and punched him, knocking him to the ground. Id. at
236-37; Ex. 2 (2:45:55 a.m. on surveillance video). When Debriel went to help
his cousin Durone, he became involved in the fight too. Tr. p. 193. Danielle got
out of her car to see what was going on. After realizing that Debriel and
Durone were being jumped, she returned to her car to get some five-pound
hand weights in an attempt to stop the fight and pulled her car near the front
entrance of the bar. Id. at 76. But the fighting continued.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 34A02-1412-CR-871 | July 7, 2015 Page 2 of 6
[3] A few minutes later, a man in a blue-striped shirt—later identified as Quarles—
exited the bar and walked toward the fight. Id. at 239; Ex. 2 (2:49:38 on the
surveillance video). At this point, Debriel had just gotten in and out of
Danielle’s car. 1 Tr. p. 239; Ex. 2 (2:49:43-2:49:52 on surveillance video).
When Debriel approached the group, Quarles ran through the bar’s parking lot
and across Plate Street to where his car was parked. Tr. p. 239, 320. Quarles
then ran back across the street to the bar’s parking lot. Id. at 240. When
Quarles rejoined the group, he had a gun in his hand. Id.; Ex. 2 (2:51:26 on
surveillance video); Ex. 16 (still shot taken from surveillance video showing gun
in Quarles’ hand). As Debriel walked to Danielle’s car, the group, including
Quarles, closed in on him. Multiple shots were fired; Debriel was shot in the
face but survived. Danielle saw Quarles shoot Debriel but did not know his
name at that time. Tr. p. 95. She later identified Quarles as the shooter.
Debriel, Durone, and Danielle did not have guns on them, and no guns were
found in Danielle’s car or on the scene. Quarles later gave police the gun he
used to shoot Debriel.
[4] The State charged Quarles with Class A felony attempted murder and Class B
felony aggravated battery. Appellant’s App. p. 12. Quarles argued self-defense
at trial. Following a jury trial, the jury found Quarles not guilty of attempted
1
At trial, Danielle admitted telling police in one of her statements that when Debriel went back to the car, he
“was trying to act like he had a gun.” Tr. p. 98. Debriel testified at trial, however, that he did not pretend to
have a gun or obtain a weapon during the fight. Id. at 211. We do not make credibility determinations on
appeal.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 34A02-1412-CR-871 | July 7, 2015 Page 3 of 6
murder but guilty of aggravated battery. Id. at 126. The trial court sentenced
Quarles to fifteen years, with thirteen years executed in the Indiana Department
of Correction and two years executed through Howard County Community
Corrections for in-home detention. Id. at 132.
[5] Quarles now appeals his aggravated-battery conviction.
Discussion and Decision
[6] Quarles contends that the State failed to rebut his claim of self-defense. The
standard of review for a challenge to the sufficiency of evidence to rebut a claim
of self-defense is the same as the standard for any sufficiency-of-the-evidence
claim. Wilson v. State, 770 N.E.2d 799, 801 (Ind. 2002). We neither reweigh
the evidence nor judge the credibility of witnesses. Id. If there is sufficient
evidence of probative value to support the conclusion of the trier of fact, then
the verdict will not be disturbed. Id.[7] A valid claim of self-defense is legal justification for an otherwise criminal act.
Coleman v. State, 946 N.E.2d 1160, 1165 (Ind. 2011). Indiana Code section 35-
41-3-2 provides:
(c) A person is justified in using reasonable force against any other
person to protect the person or a third person from what the person
reasonably believes to be the imminent use of unlawful force.
However, a person:
(1) is justified in using deadly force; and
(2) does not have a duty to retreat;
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 34A02-1412-CR-871 | July 7, 2015 Page 4 of 6
if the person reasonably believes that that force is necessary to prevent
serious bodily injury to the person or a third person or the commission
of a forcible felony. No person in this state shall be placed in legal
jeopardy of any kind whatsoever for protecting the person or a third
person by reasonable means necessary.
In order to prevail on a claim of self-defense, a defendant must show: (1) he was
in a place where he had a right to be; (2) he acted without fault; and (3) he had
a reasonable fear of death or great bodily harm. Coleman, 946 N.E.2d at 1165.
Once a defendant claims self-defense, the State bears the burden of disproving
at least one of these elements beyond a reasonable doubt for the defendant’s
claim to fail. Miller v. State, 720 N.E.2d 696, 700 (Ind. 1999). The State may
meet this burden by rebutting the defense directly, by affirmatively showing the
defendant did not act in self-defense, or by simply relying upon the sufficiency
of its evidence in chief. Id. Whether the State has met its burden is a question
of fact for the fact-finder. Id. Self-defense is generally unavailable to a
defendant who has entered into combat with another person or is the initial
aggressor, “unless the person withdraws from the encounter and communicates
to the other person the intent to do so and the other person nevertheless
continues or threatens to continue unlawful action.” See Ind. Code § 35-41-3-
2(g)(3); see also Wooley v. State, 716 N.E.2d 919, 926 (Ind. 1999) (“An ‘initial
aggressor’ and those who ‘enter into combat’ (i.e., mutually willing combatants)
[must] declare an armistice before they may claim self-defense.”), reh’g denied.
[8] We find that the State has negated at least one element of Quarles’ self-defense
claim—that Quarles did not act without fault. The evidence shows that Quarles
was not involved in the initial fight. Instead, Quarles exited the bar while the
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 34A02-1412-CR-871 | July 7, 2015 Page 5 of 6
fight was occurring and ran across the street to his parked car. When Quarles
ran back across the street, he had a gun in his hand. As Debriel walked to
Danielle’s car, Quarles approached the unarmed Debriel and shot him in the
face. Tr. p. 320. Because Quarles participated willingly in the violence, we
conclude that the evidence is sufficient to rebut his self-defense claim.
[9] Affirmed.
Kirsch, J., and Bradford, J., concur.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 34A02-1412-CR-871 | July 7, 2015 Page 6 of 6