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 May 13 2014, 8:46 am
establishing the defense of res judicata,
collateral estoppel, or the law of the case.
ATTORNEY FOR APPELLANT: ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE:
KIMMERLY A. KLEE GREGORY F. ZOELLER
Greenwood, Indiana Attorney General of Indiana
RICHARD C. WEBSTER
Deputy Attorney General
Indianapolis, Indiana
IN THE
COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA
ANTONIO BEAVEN, )
)
Appellant-Defendant, )
)
vs. ) No. 49A02-1309-CR-811
)
STATE OF INDIANA, )
)
Appellee-Plaintiff. )
APPEAL FROM THE MARION SUPERIOR COURT
The Honorable Kurt M. Eisgruber, Judge
Cause No. 49G01-1111-MR-79459
May 13, 2014
MEMORANDUM DECISION - NOT FOR PUBLICATION
NAJAM, Judge
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Antonio Beaven appeals his adjudication as an habitual offender. Beaven raises a
single issue for our review, namely, whether the State presented sufficient evidence to
support his adjudication as an habitual offender. We affirm.
FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY
In November of 2011, Beaven murdered J.T. Following a jury trial in which the
jury found him guilty of murder, the trial court adjudicated Beaven an habitual offender.
This appeal ensued.
DISCUSSION AND DECISION
Beaven argues that the State failed to present sufficient evidence to support its
allegation that he is an habitual offender. When reviewing a claim of sufficiency of the
evidence, we do not reweigh the evidence or judge the credibility of the witnesses. Jones
v. State, 783 N.E.2d 1132, 1139 (Ind. 2003). We look only to the probative evidence
supporting the judgment and the reasonable inferences that may be drawn from that
evidence to determine whether a reasonable trier of fact could conclude the defendant
was guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. Id. If there is substantial evidence of probative
value to support the conviction, it will not be set aside. Id.
To establish that Beaven was an habitual offender, the State was required to show
that Beaven had “accumulated two (2) prior unrelated felony convictions.” Ind. Code §
35-50-2-8. “To be ‘unrelated,’ the defendant must have committed the second felony
after being sentenced for the first and must have been sentenced for the second felony
2
prior to committing the current felony . . . .” Walker v. State, 988 N.E.2d 1181, 1186-87
(Ind. Ct. App. 2013), trans. denied.
The State presented sufficient evidence to demonstrate that Beaven is an habitual
offender. First, the State demonstrated that Beaven committed Class D felony battery on
August 21, 1998, for which he was convicted and sentenced on November 2, 1998. In
demonstrating this prior conviction, the State presented the signed and dated report of the
arresting officer; the signed and dated charging information, which plainly states that
Beaven had been charged with a Class D felony; Beaven’s signed and dated plea
agreement to the Class D felony allegation; and the court’s signed and dated judgment of
conviction and sentencing order against Beaven for the Class D felony battery. State’s
Exhs. 305, 306. Each of these documents had the same cause number. The State also
demonstrated that the fingerprint on the arresting officer’s report was Beaven’s
fingerprint. State’s Exh. 307.
Second, the State demonstrated that Beaven committed Class B felony robbery on
August 16, 1999, for which he was convicted and sentenced on March 3, 2000. In
demonstrating this second conviction, which was committed after Beaven had been
sentenced for the 1998 Class D felony battery, the State presented the signed and dated
report of the arresting officer; the signed and dated charging information, which plainly
states that Beaven had been charged with a Class B felony; Beaven’s signed plea
agreement to the Class B felony allegation; and the court’s signed and dated abstract of
judgment for the Class B felony robbery, which states that Beaven was convicted and
sentenced on March 3, 2000. State’s Exhs. 303, 304. Each of these documents had the
3
same cause number. The State also demonstrated that the fingerprint on the arresting
officer’s report was Beaven’s fingerprint. State’s Exh. 307.
In sum, the State presented sufficient evidence to demonstrate that Beaven had
two prior unrelated felony convictions and was, therefore, an habitual offender. We
affirm the trial court’s judgment.
Affirmed.
VAIDIK, C.J., and BROWN, J., concur.
4