MEMORANDUM DECISION
FILED
Pursuant to Ind. Appellate Rule 65(D), Apr 29 2016, 9:14 am
this Memorandum Decision shall not be CLERK
regarded as precedent or cited before any Indiana Supreme Court
Court of Appeals
court except for the purpose of establishing and Tax Court
the defense of res judicata, collateral
estoppel, or the law of the case.
ATTORNEY FOR APPELLANT ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE
Kevin Wild Gregory F. Zoeller
Indianapolis, Indiana Attorney General of Indiana
Ian McLean
Deputy Attorney General
Indianapolis, Indiana
IN THE
COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA
Anthony Shockley, April 29, 2016
Appellant-Defendant, Court of Appeals Case No.
49A02-1510-CR-1540
v. Appeal from the Marion Superior
Court
State of Indiana, The Honorable Marc T.
Appellee-Plaintiff. Rothenberg, Judge
Trial Court Cause No.
49G02-1106-FA-42372
Brown, Judge.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 49A02-1510-CR-1540 | April 29, 2016 Page 1 of 9
[1] Anthony Shockley appeals his convictions and sentence for two counts of
attempted murder as class A felonies and attempted robbery as a class B felony.
Shockley raises two issues which we revise and restate as:
I. Whether the evidence is sufficient to sustain Shockley’s convictions
for attempted murder as class A felonies; and
II. Whether his sentence is inappropriate in light of the nature of the
offenses and the character of the offender.
We affirm.
Facts and Procedural History
[2] On the evening of June 4, 2011, Shockley and Johnathan Williams had plans to
attend a party, and Williams picked up Shockley and Jamar Perkins in
Williams’s grandmother’s white Trailblazer. After finding out that the party
had been canceled, however, the men had a conversation about robbing
someone, and Shockley suggested going to the Cottages Apartments to find
someone to rob.
[3] In the early hours of June 5, 2011, Quatonya Germany and Dominic Crockett
were sitting in Germany’s PT Cruiser under a carport at the Cottages
Apartments and discussing their relationship when Germany noticed what she
thought was a white SUV drive in front of them. She then observed two men
she later identified as Shockley and Perkins approaching the car. Shockley
proceeded to the front of Germany’s car with a .22 caliber semi-automatic rifle,
and Perkins went to the driver’s side window holding a .380 caliber handgun.
As Crockett started the car, Perkins aimed and fired his gun once towards the
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 49A02-1510-CR-1540 | April 29, 2016 Page 2 of 9
driver’s-side window, striking the window. Crockett then attempted to drive
out of the carport, and Shockley aimed his weapon and fired several times at
the front of the vehicle, leaving approximately seven bullet holes in the hood.
Shockley also fired at least one additional shot at the back of the vehicle as
Crockett drove away from the scene.
[4] Crockett was shot in the wrist, and he and Germany went to Community East
Hospital. Indianapolis Metropolitan Police Department (“IMPD”) Officer
Michael Anderson arrived at the hospital in response to the shooting. A bullet
fragment was discovered in the windshield of the vehicle, and a firearm expert
later was unable to determine whether the bullet fragment had been fired from
Shockley’s or Perkins’s gun. Officer Anderson went to Cottage Apartments
where he recovered a .22 LR caliber live round and seven .22 LR caliber
casings. IMPD Detective Chris Craighill also discovered a fired casing for a
.380 caliber bullet later determined to have been fired by Perkins’s gun.
[5] Later that same day, IMPD Detective Daniel Ryan stopped Williams because
he was driving a vehicle matching the description given to the police by
Germany, and he was arrested on June 8, 2011. Williams subsequently
provided information that led to the investigation of Shockley and Perkins, and
Shockley was arrested on June 13, 2011.
[6] On June 14, 2011, the State charged Shockley with two counts of attempted
murder as class A felonies and one count of attempted robbery as a class B
felony. Additionally, Shockley was prosecuted for murder and attempted
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 49A02-1510-CR-1540 | April 29, 2016 Page 3 of 9
robbery as a class C felony for other criminal activity also occurring on the
night of June 4, 2011 and the early morning hours of June 5, 2011, including
the murder of Clayton Battice, under cause number 49G02-1106-MR-42263
(“Cause No. 42263”). Prior to trial in this case he was found guilty and
sentenced to an aggregate term of sixty years executed on those convictions.
Shockley v. State, No. 49A02-1212-CR-957, slip op. at 2-3 (Ind. Ct. App. July 23,
2013), trans. denied.
[7] On August 24, 2015, in advance of trial, the State amended the attempted
robbery charge to delete certain words from the charging information. That
same day, the court commenced a two-day jury trial, and on August 25, 2015,
Shockley was found guilty as charged. On September 8, 2015, the court
sentenced Shockley to forty years on each attempted murder conviction to be
served consecutively and a concurrent eight years on the class B felony
attempted robbery conviction, for an aggregate sentence of eighty years in the
Department of Correction (“DOC”). The court also ordered that his eighty-
year sentence and the sixty-year sentence in Cause No. 42263 should be served
consecutively. Transcript at 357.
Discussion
I.
[8] The first issue is whether the evidence is sufficient to sustain Shockley’s
convictions for attempted murder as class A felonies. When reviewing claims
of insufficiency of the evidence, we do not reweigh the evidence or judge the
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 49A02-1510-CR-1540 | April 29, 2016 Page 4 of 9
credibility of witnesses. Jordan v. State, 656 N.E.2d 816, 817 (Ind. 1995), reh’g
denied. Rather, we look to the evidence and the reasonable inferences therefrom
that support the verdict. Id. We will affirm the conviction if there exists
evidence of probative value from which a reasonable trier of fact could find the
defendant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. Id.
[9] The offense of attempted murder is governed by Ind. Code § 35-42-1-1 and Ind.
Code § 35-41-5-1. To convict a defendant of attempted murder, the State must
prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant, acting with the specific
intent to kill, engaged in conduct which constitutes a substantial step toward the
commission of murder. Mitchem v. State, 685 N.E.2d 671, 676 (Ind. 1997). A
“substantial step” toward the commission of a crime, for purposes of the crime
of attempt, is any overt act beyond mere preparation and in furtherance of
intent to commit an offense. Hughes v. State, 600 N.E.2d 130, 131 (Ind. Ct.
App. 1992). Whether a defendant has taken a substantial step toward the
commission of the crime is a question of fact to be decided by the trier of fact
based on the particular circumstances of the case. Id. “[W]hen determining
whether the defendant has taken a substantial step toward a crime, the focus is
on what has been completed, not on what remains to be done.” Id. at 132.
[10] In his brief, Shockley concedes that he fired “into the hood, tire, and lower
body of the car,” which he asserts “was reckless and even risky to the vehicle’s
occupants,” but he maintains that “the circumstances show only an intent other
than specifically to kill.” Appellant’s Brief at 12-13. He points to where the .22
caliber casings were found and notes his close proximity to the vehicle, and he
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 49A02-1510-CR-1540 | April 29, 2016 Page 5 of 9
suggests that if he intended to kill the occupants he would have shot into the
cabin. He argues that his intent was to rob the occupants, not kill them. The
State argues that Shockley shot several times in the direction of the two victims
which established his intent to kill.
[11] The Indiana Supreme Court has “unequivocally determined that the requisite
intent to kill may be inferred from the use of a deadly weapon in a manner
likely to cause death or great bodily harm.” Maxwell v. State, 731 N.E.2d 459,
462 (Ind. Ct. App. 2000) (citing Bartlett v. State, 711 N.E.2d 497, 500 (Ind.
1999); Wilson v. State, 697 N.E.2d 466, 475 (Ind. 1998), reh’g denied; Barany v.
State, 658 N.E.2d 60, 65 (Ind. 1995); Shelton v. State, 602 N.E.2d 1017, 1022
(Ind. 1992); Johnson v. State, 455 N.E.2d 932, 936 (Ind. 1983)), trans. denied. We
look to the evidence and the reasonable inferences therefrom that support the
verdict. See Jordan, 656 N.E.2d at 817. The evidence shows that Shockley,
upon exiting the Trailblazer, proceeded to the front of Germany’s car with a .22
LR caliber semi-automatic rifle, and as Crockett attempted to back out of the
carport Shockley aimed his weapon and fired several times at the front of the
vehicle, leaving approximately seven bullet holes in the hood. Shockley also
fired at least one additional shot at the back of the vehicle as Crockett drove
away from the scene. Shockley’s argument is an invitation to reweigh the
evidence, which we cannot do. Id.
[12] We conclude that the State presented evidence of probative value from which a
reasonable jury could have determined beyond a reasonable doubt that
Shockley was guilty of two counts of attempted murder. See Cook v. State, 675
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 49A02-1510-CR-1540 | April 29, 2016 Page 6 of 9
N.E.2d 687, 692 (Ind. 1996) (holding that the evidence was sufficient to sustain
the defendant’s conviction for murder despite the defendant’s argument that he
did not intentionally shoot at the victim); Maxwell, 731 N.E.2d at 462-463 (Ind.
Ct. App. 2000) (holding that the evidence was sufficient to sustain the
defendant’s conviction for attempted murder where he pointed and shot his .44
caliber handgun at two victims at close range).
II.
[13] The next issue is whether Shockley’s aggregate sentence of eighty years is
inappropriate in light of the nature of the offenses and his character. Indiana
Appellate Rule 7(B) provides that this court “may revise a sentence authorized
by statute if, after due consideration of the trial court’s decision, [we find] that
the sentence is inappropriate in light of the nature of the offense and the
character of the offender.” Under this rule, the burden is on the defendant to
persuade the appellate court that his or her sentence is inappropriate. Childress
v. State, 848 N.E.2d 1073, 1080 (Ind. 2006). Relief is available if, after due
consideration of the trial court’s sentencing decision, this court finds that in our
independent judgment, the sentence is inappropriate in light of the nature of the
offense and the character of the offender. Hines v. State, 30 N.E.3d 1216, 1225
(Ind. 2015). “[S]entencing is principally a discretionary function in which the
trial court’s judgment should receive considerable deference.” Id. (quoting
Cardwell v. State, 895 N.E.2d 1219, 1222 (Ind. 2008)). “[A]ppellate review
should focus on the forest—the aggregate sentence—rather than the trees—
consecutive or concurrent, number of counts, or length of the sentence on any
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 49A02-1510-CR-1540 | April 29, 2016 Page 7 of 9
individual count.” Cardwell, 895 N.E.2d at 1225. “[W]hether we regard a
sentence as appropriate at the end of the day turns on our sense of the
culpability of the defendant, the severity of the crime, the damage done to
others, and myriad other factors that come to light in a given case.” Hines, 30
N.E.3d at 1225 (quoting Cardwell, 895 N.E.2d at 1224).
[14] Shockley argues that, as argued in Part I, he did not have a specific intent to kill
and was not first to shoot. He argues that, to the extent Crockett was injured,
the evidence infers that the other shooter caused the injury. He also argues that
he was only nineteen years old at the time, that his criminal history consisted of
“only a juvenile B felony Burglary and Residential Entry as an adult,” and that
the sentence in this case and the other case are essentially a life sentence.
Appellant’s Brief at 18.
[15] Our review of the nature of the offenses reveals that Shockley suggested to
Williams and Perkins that they find someone to rob, and in pursuit thereof
came upon a PT Cruiser occupied by Germany and Crockett, whom they did
not know, while it was parked in a carport. Perkins and Shockley approached
the vehicle while armed, and Shockley positioned himself at the front of the
vehicle. Perkins fired his gun and struck the driver’s side window, and
Shockley fired several times at the front of the vehicle, leaving several holes in
it. Shockley also fired at the back of the vehicle while it was leaving. Crockett
was shot in the wrist.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 49A02-1510-CR-1540 | April 29, 2016 Page 8 of 9
[16] Our review of his character reveals that Shockley was nineteen years old at the
time of the offenses. The Presentence Investigation Report (“PSI”) reveals that
he has been involved in gang activity, and as a juvenile, he had true findings for
fleeing law enforcement and criminal conversion in 2008, and in 2010 a true
finding was entered on a charge of burglary as a class B felony if committed by
an adult. As an adult, in 2011 he was sentenced to 730 days with 718 days
suspended for residential entry as a class D felony, and his probation was
revoked on July 8, 2011. On the day he was arrested on the instant charges he
was also arrested for murdering Clayton Battice, and was found guilty of that
crime. Shockley, slip op. at 2-3.
[17] After due consideration, we conclude that Shockley has not sustained his
burden of establishing that his sentence of eighty years, to be served consecutive
to his sentence in Cause No. 42263 for murdering Clayton Battice, is
inappropriate in light of the nature of the offense and his character.
Conclusion
[18] For the foregoing reasons, we affirm Shockley’s convictions and sentence for
two counts of attempted murder as class A felonies and attempted robbery as a
class B felony.
[19] Affirmed.
Baker, J., and May, J., concur.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 49A02-1510-CR-1540 | April 29, 2016 Page 9 of 9