MEMORANDUM DECISION
Pursuant to Ind. Appellate Rule 65(D), this
Memorandum Decision shall not be regarded as Jul 23 2015, 8:19 am
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
Barbara J. Simmons Gregory F. Zoeller
Oldenburg, Indiana Attorney General of Indiana
Eric P. Babbs
Deputy Attorney General
Indianapolis, Indiana
IN THE
COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA
Michael Daugherty, July 23, 2015
Appellant-Defendant, Court of Appeals Case No.
49A04-1501-CR-19
v. Appeal from the Marion Superior
Court
State of Indiana, The Honorable Amy M. Jones,
Appellee-Plaintiff. Judge
Cause No. 49F08-1405-CM-25596
Najam, Judge.
Statement of the Case
[1] Michael Daugherty appeals his conviction for criminal mischief, as a Class B
misdemeanor, following a bench trial. Daugherty presents a single issue for our
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 49A04-1501-CR-19| July 23, 2015 Page 1 of 4
review, namely, whether the State presented sufficient evidence to support his
conviction. We affirm.
Facts and Procedural History
[2] Daugherty and Larae Kesler’s granddaughter 1 have a child together (“Child”),
but Kesler’s granddaughter is married to someone else (“Stepfather”).
Daugherty had filed a “complaint” against Stepfather with the Indiana
Department of Child Services (“DCS”) in an effort to prevent Stepfather from
having any contact with Child. Tr. at 5. On May 10, 2014, Daugherty
“brought the police” and someone from the DCS to Kesler’s Indianapolis
residence looking for Stepfather and Child, but Kesler stated that they did not
live there. Later that day, Kesler found Daugherty “standing at [her] bedroom
window ripping [the] screen and . . . frame out of [the] window.” Id. at 6.
Kesler called the police, but Daugherty had left the premises by the time the
police arrived.
[3] The State charged Daugherty with criminal mischief, as a Class B
misdemeanor. The trial court found him guilty as charged following a bench
trial, and the court sentenced him to 180 days with 176 days suspended. This
appeal ensued.
1
We cannot find any reference to the granddaughter’s name in the record on appeal.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 49A04-1501-CR-19| July 23, 2015 Page 2 of 4
Discussion and Decision
[4] Daugherty contends that the State presented insufficient evidence to support his
conviction. Our standard of review for sufficiency of the evidence claims is
well-settled. Tobar v. State, 740 N.E.2d 109, 111 (Ind. 2000).
In reviewing the sufficiency of the evidence, we examine only the
probative evidence and reasonable inferences that support the
verdict. We do not assess witness credibility, nor do we reweigh
the evidence to determine if it was sufficient to support a
conviction. Under our appellate system, those roles are reserved
for the finder of fact. Instead, we consider only the evidence
most favorable to the trial court ruling and affirm the conviction
unless no reasonable fact-finder could find the elements of the
crime proven beyond a reasonable doubt.
Pillow v. State, 986 N.E.2d 343, 344 (Ind. Ct. App. 2013) (citations omitted)
(internal quotation marks omitted).
[5] To prove criminal mischief, as a Class B misdemeanor, the State was required
to prove that Daugherty recklessly, knowingly, or intentionally damaged or
defaced the bedroom window screen in Kesler’s home when he “ripp[ed] the
screen from the window.” Appellant’s App. at 13; Ind. Code § 35-43-1-2(a)(1).
At trial, Kesler testified that she saw Daugherty “ripping my screen and my
frame out of my window.” Tr. at 6.
[6] Daugherty’s sole contention on appeal is that, because Kesler and Daugherty
were involved in a family dispute, Kesler was “bias[ed]” against him and had a
“motive” to “punish [him] in retaliation for his filing a DCS complaint against
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 49A04-1501-CR-19| July 23, 2015 Page 3 of 4
[Stepfather].” Appellant’s Br. at 6. But that contention is a request that we
reassess witness credibility, which we cannot do. The State presented sufficient
evidence to support Daugherty’s conviction.
[7] Affirmed.
Kirsch, J., and Barnes, J., concur.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 49A04-1501-CR-19| July 23, 2015 Page 4 of 4