MEMORANDUM DECISION
Pursuant to Ind. Appellate Rule 65(D),
FILED
this Memorandum Decision shall not be Nov 20 2018, 9:46 am
regarded as precedent or cited before any CLERK
Indiana Supreme Court
court except for the purpose of establishing Court of Appeals
and Tax Court
the defense of res judicata, collateral
estoppel, or the law of the case.
ATTORNEY FOR APPELLANT ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE
Mark Small Curtis T. Hill, Jr.
Indianapolis, Indiana Attorney General of Indiana
Taylor C. Byrley
Angela N. Sanchez
J.T. Whitehead
Deputy Attorneys General
Indianapolis, Indiana
IN THE
COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA
Gary Glaze, November 20, 2018
Appellant-Defendant, Court of Appeals Case No.
18A-CR-1100
v. Appeal from the Montgomery
Superior Court
State of Indiana, The Honorable Heather Barajas,
Appellee-Plaintiff Judge
Trial Court Cause No.
54D01-1702-F5-339
Baker, Judge.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 18A-CR-1100 | November 20, 2018 Page 1 of 4
[1] Gary Glaze appeals his conviction for Level 6 Felony Battery Resulting in
Moderate Bodily Injury,1 arguing that the evidence was insufficient to support
his conviction. Finding that the evidence was sufficient, we affirm.
[2] Glaze is an inmate in the Montgomery County Jail who, at the time of the
incident, was housed in the same pod as Nicholas Summers. Summers was
eighteen years old and suffered from autism and a learning disability. On
January 25, 2017, Glaze got angry when he learned that Summers had Kool-
Aid. Glaze threw Summers’s mattress and told him to leave; Summers said no
and put his mattress back on his bed. When Summers turned around, Glaze
started to beat him, hitting his right eye multiple times with a closed fist. Glaze
told Summers that if Summers reported the incident, Glaze would kill him.
[3] Deputy Christian Brown received a report that a fight had occurred. When he
saw Summers, Summers was sobbing; his right eye was bleeding and swollen
shut, and there was a “pretty good gash” on his right eyelid. Tr. Vol. II p. 46.
Summers’s injuries included lacerations and fractured bones.
[4] On February 7, 2017, Glaze was charged with Level 5 felony battery resulting
in serious bodily injury and Level 6 felony battery resulting in moderate bodily
injury. On August 8, 2017, Glaze entered into a plea agreement; on November
1, 2017, the trial court rejected the plea agreement. A jury trial then took place
on April 3, 2018, after which the jury found Glaze guilty of Level 6 felony
1
Ind. Code § 35-42-2-1(e)(1).
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 18A-CR-1100 | November 20, 2018 Page 2 of 4
battery resulting in moderate bodily injury but not guilty of Level 5 felony
battery resulting in serious bodily injury. Glaze admitted to being an habitual
offender. During a May 1, 2018, sentencing hearing, the trial court sentenced
Glaze to two years for his battery conviction and enhanced the sentence by four
years for his status as an habitual offender, for an aggregate term of six years.
Glaze now appeals.
[5] Glaze’s sole argument on appeal is that the evidence is insufficient to support
his conviction. Specifically, he contends that Summers’s uncorroborated
testimony was the only evidence that supported his conviction, thereby leaving
open to reasonable doubt the identity of the assailant. When reviewing the
sufficiency of the evidence to support a conviction, we must consider only the
probative evidence and reasonable inferences supporting the conviction and will
neither assess witness credibility nor reweigh the evidence. Drane v. State, 867
N.E.2d 144, 146 (Ind. 2007). We will affirm unless no reasonable factfinder
could find the elements of the crime proved beyond a reasonable doubt. Id.
The uncorroborated testimony of one witness may be sufficient by itself to
sustain a conviction on appeal. Toney v. State, 715 N.E.2d 367, 369 (Ind. 1999).
[6] To convict Glaze of Level 6 felony battery resulting in moderate bodily injury,
the State was required to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Glaze
knowingly or intentionally touched Summers in a rude, insolent, or angry
manner that resulted in moderate bodily injury to Summers. I.C. § 35-42-2-
1(e)(1).
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 18A-CR-1100 | November 20, 2018 Page 3 of 4
[7] Summers testified that Glaze beat him up and caused his injuries. Specifically,
he testified that Glaze was angry and shouted at him when Glaze discovered
that Summers had Kool-Aid, that Glaze threw Summers’s mattress around, and
that Glaze called him names and told him to leave the cell. Summers stated
that Glaze then hit his right eye multiple times with a closed fist. He positively
identified Glaze as his assailant in a written statement shortly after he was
discharged from the hospital. Summers’s testimony alone was sufficient to
satisfy the elements of the charge that the State was required to prove and to
establish the identity of the assailant. Glaze’s attempt to cast doubt on the
identity of Summers’s assailant is an attempt to reweigh the evidence and assess
the credibility of the witnesses, which we may not do. The evidence was
sufficient to support the conviction.
[8] The judgment of the trial court is affirmed.
May, J., and Robb, J., concur.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 18A-CR-1100 | November 20, 2018 Page 4 of 4