MEMORANDUM DECISION
Pursuant to Ind. Appellate Rule 65(D),
this Memorandum Decision shall not be FILED
regarded as precedent or cited before any May 29 2019, 9:56 am
court except for the purpose of establishing
the defense of res judicata, collateral CLERK
Indiana Supreme Court
Court of Appeals
estoppel, or the law of the case. and Tax Court
ATTORNEY FOR APPELLANT ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE
Donald J. Berger Curtis T. Hill, Jr.
Law Office of Donald J. Berger Attorney General of Indiana
South Bend, Indiana
Monika Prekopa Talbot
Supervising Deputy Attorney
General
Indianapolis, Indiana
IN THE
COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA
Tyrone Sims, May 29, 2019
Appellant-Defendant, Court of Appeals Case No.
18A-CR-2145
v. Appeal from the
St. Joseph Superior Court
State of Indiana, The Honorable
Appellee-Plaintiff. Jeffrey L. Sanford, Judge
Trial Court Cause No.
71D03-1801-F5-12
Kirsch, Judge.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 18A-CR-2145 | May 29, 2019 Page 1 of 5
[1] Tyrone Sims (“Sims”) was convicted after a jury trial of theft1 as a Class A
misdemeanor and burglary2 as a Level 5 felony. Sims now appeals, claiming
that the evidence was not sufficient to support his convictions.
[2] We affirm.
Facts and Procedural History
[3] On Sunday, January 21, 2018, around 1:30 a.m., Mark Vanator (“Vanator”),
the owner of a local automotive business (“the Store”), was notified by his
security company that the alarm had been triggered by someone entering the
Store. Tr. Vol. 2 at 72. Vanator drove to the Store. Id.
[4] Roughly twelve minutes later, Vanator arrived at the Store and found that glass
from a window was broken. Id. Vanator dialed 911. Id. When the police
arrived, the officers asked Vanator to come into the Store to determine if
anything was missing. Id. at 73. He went inside and noticed a jack, which was
usually by the now-broken window, was missing. Id. The missing jack was
blue with a yellow handle and weighed roughly seventy pounds. Id.
[5] On the same day around 3:00 a.m., South Bend Police Department Officer Paul
Daley (“Officer Daley”) heard an alarm go off while he was patrolling an
industrial area just north of the Store. Id. at 104. While investigating the alarm,
1
See Ind. Code § 35-43-4-2(a).
2
See Ind. Code § 35-43-2-1.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 18A-CR-2145 | May 29, 2019 Page 2 of 5
Officer Daley saw Sims with a cart by an industrial building. Id. at 105. Officer
Daley did not expect to see anyone in the area since it was the middle of the
night and the weather was so cold. Id. at 106. Officer Daley went over to Sims
to make sure he was okay, and he saw a blue jack with a yellow handle in the
cart. Id. at 109. Vanator later identified the jack Sims had in his cart as the jack
that was missing from the Store. Id. at 78.
[6] The State charged Sims with Level 5 felony burglary and Class A misdemeanor
theft. Appellant’s App. Vol. 2 at 10. A jury trial began on August 23, 2018 and
concluded on August 24, 2018. Tr. Vol. 2 at 1. The jury found Sims guilty of
both charges. The trial court then sentenced Sims to three years for the burglary
and one year for the theft and ordered that the sentences would be served
concurrently. Appellant’s App. Vol. 2 at 43. Sims now appeals.
Discussion and Decision
[7] Sims argues that there was insufficient evidence to support his convictions for
Level 5 felony burglary and Class A misdemeanor theft. When we review the
sufficiency of evidence, we do not determine the credibility of witnesses or
reweigh the evidence. Boggs v. State, 928 N.E. 2d 855, 864 (Ind. Ct. App. 2010),
trans. denied. We consider only the evidence most favorable to the verdict and
the reasonable inferences that can be drawn from this evidence. Fuentes v. State,
10 N.E.3d 68, 75 (Ind. Ct. App. 2014), trans. denied. We will not disturb the
jury’s verdict if there is substantial evidence of probative value to support it. Id.
Circumstantial evidence can sustain a conviction. Baltimore v. State, 878 N.E.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 18A-CR-2145 | May 29, 2019 Page 3 of 5
2d 253, 258 (Ind. Ct. App. 2007), trans. denied. Circumstantial evidence does
not need to exclude every reasonable hypothesis of innocence and can sustain a
conviction if an inference may reasonably be drawn from the evidence to
support the judgment. Id. We will affirm unless no reasonable fact-finder could
find the elements of the crime proven beyond a reasonable doubt. Delagrange v.
State, 5 N.E.3d 354, 356 (Ind. 2014).
[8] Sims contends that the State failed to prove that he committed the crimes of
burglary and theft. He states that there was no evidence to directly tie him to
the burglary and argues that he was never identified as the person who broke
and entered the Store, noting that there were no “signs of glass or abrasions” on
his person that would connect him to the break-in. Appellant’s Br. at 8. Sims
also argues that there is no evidence of theft since Sims was merely standing
next to the jack when Officer Daley saw him, and Sims was not exerting control
over the jack. To sustain a conviction for Class A misdemeanor theft, the State
must prove that Sims knowingly or intentionally executed control over the
property of another with the intent to deprive the other person of any part of its
value. Ind. Code § 34-43-4-2(a). While the unexplained possession of recently
stolen property standing alone is not sufficient to support a conviction for theft,
such possession is to be considered along with the other evidence in the case.
Holloway v. State, 983 N.E.2d 1175, 1179 (Ind. Ct. App. 2013). In order to
sustain a conviction for Level 5 felony burglary, the State must prove beyond a
reasonable doubt that Sims broke into and entered a building of another with
the intent to commit theft. Ind. Code § 35-43-2-1.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 18A-CR-2145 | May 29, 2019 Page 4 of 5
[9] A conviction of burglary or theft may be sustained by circumstantial evidence.
Williams v. State, 714 N.E.2d 671, 673 (Ind. Ct. App. 1999). The unexplained
possession of recently stolen property supports an inference of guilt of theft of
that property. See Jelks v. State, 720 N.E.2d 1171, 1174 (Ind. Ct. App. 1999);
Williams, supra, 714 N.E.2d at 673. It is also well established that such
unexplained possession of recently stolen property will support a burglary
conviction so long as there is evidence that there was in fact a burglary
committed. Steele v. State, 475 N.E.2d 1149 (Ind 1985).
[10] Here, a rational trier of fact could find Sims guilty of burglary and theft beyond
a reasonable doubt. Around 1:30 a.m. on January 21, 2018, an alarm sounded
at the Store and a blue and yellow jack was missing. Approximately an hour
later, Sims was found by Officer Daley a short distance from the Store. Sims
had in his possession the jack that had recently been stolen from the Store.
[11] A reasonable fact-finder could determine that Sims had committed burglary and
theft. The entrances to the Store were locked and undamaged. To obtain the
jack, Sims had to break the glass and enter through the window. The glass was
broken at the Store, and a reasonable fact-finder could conclude that Sims broke
the window to enter the Store and steal the jack.
[12] The evidence was sufficient to support Sims’ theft and burglary convictions.
[13] Affirmed.
Vaidik, C.J., and Altice, J., concur.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 18A-CR-2145 | May 29, 2019 Page 5 of 5