MEMORANDUM DECISION
Pursuant to Ind. Appellate Rule 65(D),
this Memorandum Decision shall not be FILED
regarded as precedent or cited before any Dec 15 2017, 8:02 am
court except for the purpose of establishing CLERK
the defense of res judicata, collateral Indiana Supreme Court
Court of Appeals
and Tax Court
estoppel, or the law of the case.
ATTORNEY FOR APPELLANT ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE
Michael R. Fisher Curtis T. Hill, Jr.
Indianapolis, Indiana Attorney General of Indiana
Henry A. Flores, Jr.
Deputy Attorney General
Indianapolis, Indiana
IN THE
COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA
Michael Williams, December 15, 2017
Appellant-Defendant, Court of Appeals Case No.
49A02-1704-CR-842
v. Appeal from the Marion Superior
Court
State of Indiana, The Honorable Grant Hawkins,
Appellee-Plaintiff. Judge
Trial Court Cause No.
49G05-1601-MR-2851
49G05-1511-F3-40597
Barnes, Judge.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 49A02-1704-CR-842| December 15, 2017 Page 1 of 8
Case Summary
[1] Michael Williams appeals his convictions for felony murder and Level 3 felony
robbery. We affirm.
Issue
[2] Williams raises one issue, which we restate as whether the evidence is sufficient
to sustain his convictions.
Facts
[3] On October 31, 2015, eighteen-year-old Raymond Alvarez and his sixteen-year-
old girlfriend, N.B., stopped by Alvarez’s parents’ apartment in Indianapolis to
pick up N.B.’s backpack. N.B. stayed in the car while Alvarez went inside. A
vehicle parked next to Alvarez’s car, and Kevin Wilkerson got out of the
passenger side of the vehicle and approached N.B. Williams was driving that
vehicle. Wilkerson asked N.B. for a lighter, which she provided to him.
Alvarez then returned, put N.B.’s backpack in the back seat of his vehicle, and
started to back out.
[4] Wilkerson made a motion to Alvarez that he needed a lighter again, and
Alvarez started to pull back into the spot. Alvarez handed a lighter to
Wilkerson, who turned his back to Alvarez and N.B. When Wilkerson turned
back around, he had a gun in his hand. Wilkerson told Alvarez to empty his
pockets, but Alvarez said he did not have anything. Wilkerson then demanded
the backpack. Alvarez reached into the back seat to retrieve the backpack and
placed it on his lap. Around this time, Williams said, “don’t do no stupid s***,
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 49A02-1704-CR-842| December 15, 2017 Page 2 of 8
bro.” Tr. Vol. II p. 43. N.B. was not sure if Williams was talking to Wilkerson
or Alvarez. Wilkerson grabbed the backpack and threw it onto the passenger
seat of Williams’s vehicle. N.B. saw the backpack, which was in the car with
Williams, moving around, but she could not see Williams’s hands. Wilkerson
then demanded again that Alvarez empty his pockets. Alvarez said again that
he did not have any money but that he did have candy that his brother gave
him. Wilkerson said, “You think this s*** is funny, you think this s*** is a
game.” Id. at 47. Wilkerson then shot Alvarez, resulting in his death.
Wilkerson jumped into the passenger seat, and Williams drove away quickly.
[5] On November 15, 2015, at approximately 2:00 p.m., Williams entered a Family
Dollar store in Lawrence. Williams handed the manager a note demanding
cash, and she asked him “if he really wanted to do this.” Id. at 136. Williams
said, “maybe this will make you change your mind,” and he showed her
something in his pocket that was black and had ridges on it. Id. The manager
believed it was a gun. The manager and assistant manager then opened the safe
and gave the money to Williams. During the incident, a customer approached
the counter, and Williams and the other employees told her that the store was
closed. The customer, Courtney Delaney, thought the interaction was strange.
She left the store, drove across the street to a gas station, and called 911.
[6] Williams left the store and got into the passenger side of a red vehicle driven by
Wilkerson. Delaney gave a description of the vehicle to the 911 operator.
Officers immediately found the vehicle and attempted to stop the vehicle, but
the driver refused to stop. During the pursuit, the vehicle got a flat tire and
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 49A02-1704-CR-842| December 15, 2017 Page 3 of 8
stopped. The two men started running away on foot. Officers found two
young children hiding in the backseat of the vehicle. During the foot chase of
Williams, an officer saw him discard an item and keep running. A black
firearm with ridges on the handle was later recovered from that location. When
Williams was apprehended, he had the money from Family Dollar and the note
he showed to the Family Dollar manager in his possession.
[7] Testing on the firearm revealed that it was the same gun used to kill Alvarez.
Williams’s DNA was found on the firearm’s magazine. Williams admitted to
robbing the Family Dollar but denied that he had a weapon during the robbery.
Williams also admitted that he was driving when Wilkerson shot Alvarez, but
he denied knowing what Wilkerson was doing.
[8] The State charged Williams with murder, felony murder, and Level 2 felony
robbery for the incident involving Alvarez and N.B. and alleged that Williams
was an habitual offender. Separately, the State charged Williams with Level 3
felony robbery for the Family Dollar incident and again alleged that Williams
was an habitual offender. Williams was tried for both cases at a bench trial in
January 2017. With respect to the incident involving Alvarez and N.B., the
trial court found Williams not guilty of murder but guilty of felony murder and
Level 2 felony robbery. With respect to the Family Dollar incident, the trial
court found Williams guilty of Level 3 felony robbery. Williams then pled
guilty to being an habitual offender.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 49A02-1704-CR-842| December 15, 2017 Page 4 of 8
[9] The trial court sentenced Williams to fifty-five years for felony murder
enhanced by twenty years for his status as an habitual offender. The trial court
sentenced Williams to twelve years for the Level 3 felony robbery conviction.
The trial court did not sentence Williams for the Level 2 felony robbery count
associated with Alvarez and N.B. or the second habitual offender allegation due
to double jeopardy concerns. The trial court then ordered that the sentences
run consecutively for an aggregate sentence of eighty-seven years. Williams
now appeals.
Analysis
[10] Williams challenges the sufficiency of the evidence to sustain his convictions.
In reviewing the sufficiency of the evidence, we neither reweigh the evidence
nor judge the credibility of witnesses. Willis v. State, 27 N.E.3d 1065, 1066 (Ind.
2015). We only consider “the evidence supporting the judgment and any
reasonable inferences that can be drawn from such evidence.” Id. A conviction
will be affirmed if there is substantial evidence of probative value supporting
each element of the offense such that a reasonable trier of fact could have found
the defendant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. Id. “‘It is the job of the fact-
finder to determine whether the evidence in a particular case sufficiently proves
each element of an offense, and we consider conflicting evidence most
favorably to the trial court’s ruling.’” Id. at 1066-67 (quoting Wright v. State, 828
N.E.2d 904, 906 (Ind. 2005)).
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 49A02-1704-CR-842| December 15, 2017 Page 5 of 8
[11] Williams first argues that the evidence is insufficient to sustain his conviction
for felony murder. Indiana Code Section 35-42-1-1(2) provides that a person
who “kills another human being while committing or attempting to commit . . .
robbery . . .” commits felony murder. Our supreme court has held that felony
murder can be based on accomplice liability. Wieland v. State, 736 N.E.2d 1198,
1202-03 (Ind. 2000). Indiana’s accomplice liability statute provides that a
person “who knowingly or intentionally aids, induces, or causes another person
to commit an offense commits that offense . . . .” Ind. Code § 35-41-2-4. We
consider several factors to determine whether a defendant acted as an
accomplice, including: “(1) presence at the scene of the crime; (2)
companionship with another engaged in a crime; (3) failure to oppose the
commission of the crime; and (4) the course of conduct before, during, and after
the occurrence of the crime.” Wieland, 736 N.E.2d at 1202.
[12] According to Williams, the evidence is insufficient to sustain his conviction
because “there was no showing that he participated in, or was even aware of,
the robbery of Raymond Alvarez . . . .” Appellant’s Br. p. 12. Williams
contends that N.B. said in a deposition she did not see Williams with the
backpack, that he did not participate in the robbery, and that his statement,
“Don’t do no stupid s***, bro,” was directed at Wilkerson. Id. at 14.
[13] The State presented evidence that Williams was driving Wilkerson on the night
of Alvarez’s death. They parked next to Alvarez’s vehicle, and Wilkerson
asked N.B. for a light, which she provided. They stayed next to the vehicle
until Alvarez arrived, and Wilkerson again asked for a light. When Alvarez
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 49A02-1704-CR-842| December 15, 2017 Page 6 of 8
gave him a lighter, Wilkerson pulled a gun and demanded money. Wilkerson
took N.B.’s backpack, and Williams said, “don’t do no stupid s***, bro.” Tr.
Vol. II p. 43. N.B. was not sure if Williams was talking to Wilkerson or
Alvarez. Wilkerson grabbed the backpack and threw it onto the passenger seat
of Williams’s vehicle, and N.B. saw the backpack moving but could not see
Williams’s hands. After Wilkerson shot Alvarez, he jumped into the passenger
seat, and Williams drove away quickly.
[14] Williams admits that he was present at the scene. His comments could have
been interpreted as directing Alvarez to comply with Wilkerson’s demands.
N.B. saw the backpack moving, and Williams was the only person in that
vehicle. Further, after Wilkerson shot Alvarez, Williams helped him escape the
area. The evidence demonstrated that Williams was a participant in the
robbery, not a bystander. Williams’s argument is merely a request to reweigh
the evidence, which we cannot do. We conclude that the evidence is sufficient
to sustain his conviction for felony murder.
[15] As for the Level 3 felony robbery conviction associated with the Family Dollar
incident, Williams argues that we should reduce his conviction to a Level 5
felony. Indiana Code Section 35-42-5-1 provides that a person “who knowingly
or intentionally takes property from another person . . . (1) by using or
threatening the use of force on any person; or (2) by putting any person in fear;
commits robbery, a Level 5 felony.” The offense is a Level 3 felony if it is
committed while armed with a deadly weapon. Ind. Code § 35-42-5-1. The
State alleged that Williams committed the robbery while armed with a deadly
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 49A02-1704-CR-842| December 15, 2017 Page 7 of 8
weapon. Williams does not dispute that he committed the robbery; rather, he
argues that the evidence was insufficient to show that he was armed with a
deadly weapon at the time.
[16] The State presented evidence that, during the robbery, Williams showed the
manager something in his pocket that was black and had ridges on it. The
manager believed it was a gun. During the foot pursuit, an officer saw
Williams discard something, and a black firearm with ridges on the handle was
discovered at that location. Williams’s DNA was found on the firearm’s
magazine. Williams’s argument is again merely a request to reweigh the
evidence, which we cannot do. The evidence is sufficient to show that
Williams was armed with a deadly weapon during the robbery.
Conclusion
[17] The evidence is sufficient to sustain Williams’s convictions for felony murder
and Level 3 felony robbery. We affirm.
[18] Affirmed.
May, J., and Bradford, J., concur.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 49A02-1704-CR-842| December 15, 2017 Page 8 of 8
Michael Williams v. State of Indiana (mem. dec.)
Combined Opinion