MEMORANDUM DECISION
Pursuant to Ind. Appellate Rule 65(D), this Feb 12 2015, 10:19 am
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
Frederick Vaiana Gregory F. Zoeller
Voyles Zahn & Paul Attorney General of Indiana
Indianapolis, Indiana
Christina D. Pace
Deputy Attorney General
Indianapolis, Indiana
IN THE
COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA
Fatima Mays, February 12, 2015
Appellant-Defendant, Court of Appeals Case No.
49A04-1407-CR-310
v. Appeal from the Marion Superior
Court
The Honorable Barbara Cook
State of Indiana, Crawford, Judge
Appellee-Plaintiff The Honorable Shatrese Flowers,
Commissioner
Case No. 49F09-1305-FD-30328
Bradford, Judge.
Case Summary
[1] On March 29, 2013, Appellant-Defendant Fatima Mays engaged in a
confrontation with Danella Winfield when she attempted to pick her nephew
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 49A04-1407-CR-310 | February 12, 2015 Page 1 of 9
up from Winfield’s home. During this confrontation, Mays pointed a gun at
Winfield. Mays was subsequently charged with and convicted of Class D
felony pointing a firearm.
[2] In challenging her conviction on appeal, Mays contends that Appellee-Plaintiff
the State of Indiana (the “State”) failed to provide sufficient evidence to rebut
her assertion that she acted in self-defense. Mays also contends that the trial
court abused its discretion in sentencing her. We affirm.
Facts and Procedural History
[3] The facts most favorable to the trial court’s judgment are as follows: On March
29, 2013, Winfield was caring for her grandsons G.S. and A.S. (collectively,
“the boys”), at her home in Marion County. At approximately noon, Mays
arrived at Winfield’s home to pick up her nephew, G.S. 1 At some point earlier
that day, Mays had been told that she could not pick up one of the boys without
taking both of the boys.
[4] Upon arriving at Winfield’s home, Mays started “beatin’” on the front door.
Tr. p. 19. Before Winfield could answer the door, Mays, who was upset that
Winfield had said she could not take G.S. unless she also took A.S., walked
around to the back of Winfield’s home. Winfield and the boys met Mays at the
1
The record demonstrates that G.S. is Mays’s nephew, A.S. is not.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 49A04-1407-CR-310 | February 12, 2015 Page 2 of 9
back door. Mays was “outraged” and “cussin’.” Tr. p. 20. In an attempt to get
Mays to lower her voice, Winfield “started cussin’ at her back.” Tr. p. 20.
[5] Eventually, Mays, Winfield, and the boys walked around to the front of
Winfield’s house and approached Mays’s vehicle. Upon reaching the vehicle,
Mays, who was still enraged, sat down in the driver’s seat. In a continued
attempt to calm Mays down, Winfield, who was standing between the open
door and the driver’s seat, lightly placed her hands on Mays’s shoulders and
told her that she needed to leave. A.S. was standing on Winfield’s right side
and G.S. was standing on Winfield’s left side.
[6] Mays leaned over and, upon sitting back up, was holding a gun—a black Ruger
9 mm—in her right hand. Mays pointed the gun directly at Winfield and said,
“I will kill you ole bitch. Get up off of me.” Tr. p. 23. Mays continued to
point the gun at Winfield as she started kicking her. Mays told G.S. to “[s]tand
back. I’m going to run this ole bitch over.” Tr. p. 26. Mays then put her
vehicle in reverse as A.S. and G.S. pulled Winfield out of the way of the
vehicle.
[7] On May 23, 2013, the State charged Mays with Class D felony pointing a
firearm and Class A misdemeanor battery. On March 5, 2014, the trial court
conducted a bench trial. The trial resumed on April 16, 2014. During trial,
Mays argued that her act of pointing the gun at Winfield was justified because
she was acting in self-defense. At the conclusion of trial, the trial court found
Mays guilty of Class D felony pointing a firearm and not guilty of Class A
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 49A04-1407-CR-310 | February 12, 2015 Page 3 of 9
misdemeanor battery. On June 11, 2014, the trial court sentenced Mays to a
term of 545 days, with 180 days executed on home detention and the remaining
365 days suspended to probation.
Discussion and Decision
I. Whether the State Sufficiently Rebutted Mays’s Self-
Defense Claim
[8] Mays argued at trial that she was justified in pointing a gun at Winfield because
she was acting in self-defense. On appeal, Mays contends that the State failed
to sufficiently rebut her self-defense claim.
We note that the standard of review for a challenge to the sufficiency
of the 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). Self-defense is governed by Indiana
Code section 35-41-3-2, which provides that “a person is justified in
using reasonable force against another person to protect the person ...
from what the person reasonably believes to be the imminent use of
unlawful force.” A valid claim of self-defense is a legal justification for
an otherwise criminal act. Wilson, 770 N.E.2d at 800.
To prevail on a self-defense claim, a defendant must demonstrate that
he: was in a place he had a right to be; did not provoke, instigate, or
participate willingly in the violence; and had a reasonable fear of death
or great bodily harm. Id. The amount of force that a person may use
to protect himself or herself depends on the urgency of the situation.
Harmon v. State, 849 N.E.2d 726, 730-31 (Ind. Ct. App. 2006).
However, if an individual uses “more force than is reasonably
necessary under the circumstances,” his self-defense claim will fail. Id.
at 731. A mutual combatant, whether or not the initial aggressor,
must communicate the desire to stop fighting, and the other individual
must continue fighting before self-defense can be successfully claimed.
See [Indiana Code] § 35-41-3-2(e)(3).
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 49A04-1407-CR-310 | February 12, 2015 Page 4 of 9
When a defendant claims self-defense, the State has the burden of
disproving at least one of the elements of the defense beyond a
reasonable doubt. Wilson, 770 N.E.2d at 800. If a defendant is
convicted despite his claim of self-defense, we will reverse only if no
reasonable person could say that self-defense was negated by the State
beyond a reasonable doubt. Id. at 800-01.
Mateo v. State, 981 N.E.2d 59, 72 (Ind. Ct. App. 2012). Further, in reviewing
the defendant’s claim, “[w]e neither reweigh the evidence nor assess the
credibility of witnesses but look solely to the evidence most favorable to the
judgment will all reasonable inferences to be drawn therefrom.” Miller v. State,
720 N.E.2d 696, 699 (Ind. 1999) (citations omitted).
[9] The version of Indiana Code section 35-47-4-3(b) in effect on the date in
question provided that “[a] person who knowingly or intentionally points a
firearm at another person commits a Class D felony.” In alleging that Mays
committed Class D felony pointing a firearm, the State alleged that Mays “did
knowingly point a firearm, to wit: a Ruger 9mm black semi-automatic pistol, at
[Winfield].” Appellant’s App. p. 17 (underlining in original). Mays does not
challenge the sufficiency of the evidence to prove that she pointed a firearm at
Winfield. Instead, Mays argues that she was justified in doing so because she
acted in self-defense and that the State failed to present sufficient evidence to
rebut her self-defense claim. We disagree.
[10] In this case, the State presented sufficient evidence to rebut Mays’s self-defense
claim. The evidence most favorable to the trial court’s judgment indicates that
Mays instigated the confrontation with Winfield. Further, even if Winfield
instigated the confrontation, Mays can reasonably be considered a mutual
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 49A04-1407-CR-310 | February 12, 2015 Page 5 of 9
combatant, and the evidence most favorable to the trial court’s judgment does
not indicate that Mays communicated a desire to withdraw from combat but
rather continued on in a combative state. In addition, the evidence indicates
that Mays used more force than was reasonably necessary under the
circumstances when she pulled a gun, pointed the gun at Winfield, and
threatened to kill Winfield.
[11] In arguing that the State failed to provide sufficient evidence to rebut her self-
defense claim, Mays relies on her own testimony regarding the events in
question. The trial court, however, was not obligated to believe Mays’s self-
serving testimony. See McCullough v. State, 985 N.E.2d 1135, 1139 (Ind. Ct.
App. 2013) (providing that the trier of fact was under no obligation to credit
defendant’s version of the events in question as evidence that he acted without
fault or that his actions were reasonable). Mays’s claim to the contrary merely
amounts to an invitation for this court to reweigh the evidence and reassess
witness credibility, which we will not do. See Miller, 720 N.E.2d at 699.
[12] For all of these reasons, we conclude that the State properly rebutted Mays’s
claim of self-defense.2
2
Furthermore, we disagree with Mays’s assertion that the State should not have been permitted to
rely on its case-in-chief to rebut her self-defense claim but rather should have been required to present rebuttal
evidence and note that relevant authority provides otherwise. See Wilcher v. State, 771 N.E.2d 113, 116 (Ind.
Ct. App. 2002) (citing Mariscal v. State, 687 N.E.2d 378, 381 (Ind. Ct. App. 1997), trans. denied) (providing
that the State may rebut a claim of self-defense by affirmatively showing that the defendant did not act to
defend himself or another by relying on the evidence elicited in the case-in-chief).
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 49A04-1407-CR-310 | February 12, 2015 Page 6 of 9
II. Whether the Trial Court Abused Its Discretion in
Sentencing Mays
[13] Sentencing decisions rest within the sound discretion of the trial court and are
reviewed on appeal only for an abuse of discretion. Anglemyer v. State, 868
N.E.2d 482, 490 (Ind. 2007), modified on other grounds on reh’g, 875 N.E.2d 218
(Ind. 2007). “An abuse of discretion occurs if the decision is clearly against the
logic and effect of the facts and circumstances before the court, or the
reasonable, probable, and actual deductions to be drawn therefrom.” Id.
(quotation omitted).
One way in which a trial court may abuse its discretion is failing to
enter a sentencing statement at all. Other examples include entering a
sentencing statement that explains reasons for imposing a sentence-
including a finding of aggravating and mitigating factors if any-but the
record does not support the reasons, or the sentencing statement omits
reasons that are clearly supported by the record and advanced for
consideration, or the reasons given are improper as a matter of law.
Under those circumstances, remand for resentencing may be the
appropriate remedy if we cannot say with confidence that the trial
court would have imposed the same sentence had it properly
considered reasons that enjoy support in the record.
Id. at 490-91. A single aggravating factor may support an enhanced sentence.
Fugate v. State, 608 N.E.2d 1370, 1374 (Ind. 1993).
[14] Mays claims that the trial court abused its discretion in imposing an enhanced
sentence because the trial court erroneously found her employment and school
enrollment status to be aggravating during sentencing. Initially, we note that
the trial court imposed a 545 day sentence which is less than the one-and-one-
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 49A04-1407-CR-310 | February 12, 2015 Page 7 of 9
half-year advisory sentence for a Class D felony conviction.3 As such, the trial
court did not impose an enhanced sentence.
[15] In addition, we need not consider whether the trial court erred in finding
Mays’s employment and school enrollment status to be aggravating because the
trial court found two other aggravating factors at sentencing, i.e., the nature and
circumstances of the crime and Mays’s lack of remorse, and Mays does not
challenge either of these factors on appeal. The record demonstrates that Mays
pointed a gun directly at Winfield in the immediate presence of two children,
A.S. and G.S. Mays also threatened to kill Winfield, kicked Winfield, and
seemingly attempted to run over Winfield with her vehicle. In light of these
facts, we can say with confidence that the trial court would have imposed the
same sentence—545 days with 180 days executed on home detention and 365
days suspended to probation—had the trial court properly considered only
reasons that enjoy support in the record. See Anglemyer, 868 N.E.2d at 491.
[16] Furthermore, to the extent that Mays also claims that the trial court abused its
discretion in applying weight to the aggravating and mitigating factors, we
observe that the Indiana Supreme Court has long held that a trial court is not
required to weigh or credit aggravating and mitigating factors the way an
3
We note that Indiana’s sentencing structure for felony convictions was amended effective July 1,
2014. However, the sentencing structure that was effective on the date Mays committed her criminal offense
applies in the instant matter. See Bell v. State, 654 N.E.2d 856, 858 (Ind. Ct. App. 1995) (providing that
“[g]enerally, the statute to be applied when arriving at the proper criminal penalty should be the one in effect
at the time the crime was committed.”).
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 49A04-1407-CR-310 | February 12, 2015 Page 8 of 9
appellant suggests it should be weighed or credited. Fugate, 608 N.E.2d at
1374. Further, because the trial court no longer has any obligation to “weigh”
aggravating and mitigating factors against each other when imposing a
sentence, unlike the pre-Blakely statutory regime, a trial court cannot now be
said to have abused its discretion in failing to “properly weigh” such factors.
Anglemyer, 868 N.E.2d at 491. As such, the trial court did not abuse its
discretion in this regard.
Conclusion
[17] In sum, we conclude that the State presented sufficient evidence to rebut Mays’s
self-defense claim. We also conclude that the trial court acted within its
discretion in sentencing Mays. Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the trial
court.
[18] The judgment of the trial court is affirmed.
Najam, J., and Mathias, J., concur.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 49A04-1407-CR-310 | February 12, 2015 Page 9 of 9