Carlos Miles v. State of Indiana (mem. dec.)

MEMORANDUM DECISION
May 28 2015, 10:11 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
Ellen F. Hurley Gregory F. Zoeller
Marion County Public Defender Agency Attorney General of Indiana
Indianapolis, Indiana
Christina D. Pace
Deputy Attorney General
Indianapolis, Indiana
IN THE
COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA
Carlos Miles, May 28, 2015
Appellant-Defendant, Court of Appeals Case No.
49A05-1411-CR-514
v. Appeal from the Marion Superior
Court
State of Indiana, The Honorable Stanley E. Kroh,
Magistrate
Appellee-Plaintiff
Case No. 49G03-1311-FC-71767
Crone, Judge.
Case Summary
[1] Carlos Miles challenges the sufficiency of the evidence to support his conviction
for class C felony battery. Finding the evidence sufficient, we affirm.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 49A05-1411-CR-514| May 28, 2015 Page 1 of 5
Facts and Procedural History
[2] The facts most favorable to the judgment show that on October 30, 2013, Miles
and his girlfriend Kristina Kirby were arguing in their front yard. A neighbor,
Sarah Korb, heard the shouting and called the police. Another neighbor,
Joseph Yobst, pulled into his driveway and heard Miles screaming at Kirby.
He exited his vehicle and yelled for Miles to chill out. Tr. at 50. Miles retorted,
“What did you say, mother f***er,” and Yobst reiterated that Miles needed to
chill out before someone called the police. Id.
[3] Miles ran across the street to Yobst’s driveway, put his right index finger in
Yobst’s face, and screamed at him. Yobst told him to get his finger out of his
face, and Miles pushed him down. When Yobst got back up, Miles put his left
index finger in his face. Again, Yobst told him to get his finger out of his face,
and pushed his left hand away. By this time, Miles held a greenish-blue box
cutter in his right hand behind his back. He “swiped” at Yobst with his right
hand and then put his hand behind his back. Id. at 20, 54, 73-74. Within
seconds, Yobst felt wetness and realized that his left forearm was gushing
blood. At first, Yobst thought that Miles might have cut him with very sharp
fingernails, but then he noticed that Miles had a “box kni[fe], … like the kind
you can buy at Ace Hardware.” Id. at 54. Miles said, “I don’t have a knife, I
don’t have a knife.” Id. at 20. Korb, whose pacemaker had been triggered by
the commotion, came outside and observed the altercation from behind Miles.
She saw that Miles had a green and blue knife in his right hand and exclaimed,
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 49A05-1411-CR-514| May 28, 2015 Page 2 of 5
“yes, he does have a knife.” Id. Miles fled the scene on foot before police
arrived.
[4] The State charged Miles with class C felony battery, class D felony
intimidation, and class A misdemeanor battery. At his bench trial, Indianapolis
Metropolitan Police Department Detective Sergeant John Green testified that
based on his training and experience Yobst’s injury was caused by a sharp
object consistent with a knife or glass. State’s Exhibit 5 is a photograph of
Yobst with a deep slice wound on his bloody forearm. The trial court found
Korb’s and Yobst’s testimony concerning the knife to be consistent with the
photograph and the detective’s testimony. Tr. at 169-70. The court convicted
Miles on the two battery counts but vacated the misdemeanor battery
conviction due to double jeopardy concerns. Miles was acquitted on the
intimidation count. He now appeals. Additional facts will be provided as
necessary.
Discussion and Decision
[5] Miles challenges the sufficiency of the evidence to support his conviction for
class C felony battery. When reviewing a challenge to the sufficiency of
evidence, we neither reweigh evidence nor judge witness credibility. Drane v.
State, 867 N.E.2d 144, 146 (Ind. 2007). Rather, we consider only the evidence
and reasonable inferences most favorable to the judgment and will affirm the
conviction “unless no reasonable fact-finder could find the elements of the
crime proven beyond a reasonable doubt.” Id.Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 49A05-1411-CR-514| May 28, 2015 Page 3 of 5
[6] Miles was convicted pursuant to Indiana Code Section 35-42-2-1(a)(3) (2009),
which states, “A person who knowingly or intentionally touches another person
in a rude, insolent, or angry manner commits battery, …. a Class C felony … if
it is committed by means of a deadly weapon.” Miles admits that he
intentionally touched Yobst in an angry manner; he merely challenges the
evidence to support the trial court’s finding that he used a deadly weapon, i.e., a
knife.
[7] Miles asserts that he did not cut Yobst with a knife. Instead, he maintains that
some sharp rhinestones on his wristwatch cut Yobst’s arm during their
altercation. At trial, he described how he placed his watch down on his
knuckles while running across the street to confront Yobst. However, the trial
court considered this evidence and found that Korb’s and Yobst’s testimony
was consistent with the photograph depicting Yobst’s sliced arm.
[8] Miles also challenges the probative value of Korb’s testimony, claiming that she
was upset over the death of her cat and her pacemaker being triggered and that
she had ulcers in her left eye that impaired her ability to judge whether she
actually saw him with a knife. To the extent that he asserts that she only saw
the handle of the knife, we note that this is consistent with Yobst’s description
of the weapon as a box knife, which would have a retractable blade. It is also
consistent with Korb’s description of the knife as one with a “metal flap” for
protection “when you put it in your pocket.” Tr. at 18. Again, the trial court,
as the finder of fact, evaluated this evidence in combination with the physical
evidence and Korb’s testimony describing her vision in her right eye as “fairly
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 49A05-1411-CR-514| May 28, 2015 Page 4 of 5
excellent.” Id. at 28. Simply put, Miles’s insufficiency arguments amount to
invitations to reweigh evidence and judge witness credibility, which we may not
do. Accordingly, we affirm.
[9] Affirmed.
Brown, J., and Pyle, J., concur.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 49A05-1411-CR-514| May 28, 2015 Page 5 of 5