MEMORANDUM DECISION
Pursuant to Ind. Appellate Rule 65(D), this FILED
Memorandum Decision shall not be regarded as Sep 26 2017, 8:43 am
precedent or cited before any court except for the
purpose of establishing the defense of res judicata, CLERK
Indiana Supreme Court
collateral estoppel, or the law of the case. Court of Appeals
and Tax Court
ATTORNEY FOR APPELLANT ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE INDIANA
Jennifer L. Koethe ATTORNEY GENERAL
La Porte, Indiana Curtis T. Hill, Jr.
Attorney General of Indiana
Henry A. Flores, Jr.
Deputy Attorney General
Indianapolis, Indiana
IN THE
COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA
Derrick David Wolford, September 26, 2017
Appellant-Defendant, Court of Appeals Case No.
46A04-1703-CR-629
v. Appeal from the La Porte Superior
Court
State of Indiana, The Honorable Greta Sterling
Friedman, Judge
Appellee-Plaintiff
Trial Court Cause No.
46D04-1512-CM-3211
Bradford, Judge.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 46A04-1703-CR-629| September 26, 2017 Page 1 of 4
Case Summary
[1] On August 24, 2015, Appellant-Defendant Derrick Wolford went to the home
of his ex-girlfriend Katie Bohle to retrieve some belongings. At some point,
Wolford asked Bohle for a cigarette, and, when Bohle left to retrieve one,
Wolford was left alone with her purse. Later that day, Bohle noticed that $720
(which represented the proceeds of the paycheck she had cashed that morning)
was missing from her purse. Wolford was the only person other that Bohle
who had had access to the purse before the money was discovered to be
missing. The State charged Wolford with Class A misdemeanor theft, and the
trial court found him guilty as charged and sentenced him to 180 days of
incarceration. Wolford contends that the State produced insufficient evidence
to sustain his theft conviction. Because we disagree, we affirm.
Facts and Procedural History
[2] On August 24, 2015, Bohle cashed her $720 paycheck from her job as a certified
nursing assistant and placed the money in her purse. Thereafter, Wolford,
whose romantic relationship with Bohle had recently ended, arrived at Bohle’s
residence in La Porte County to retrieve some of his belongings. Wolford was
aware of Bohle’s schedule and when she was paid and cashed her paycheck.
[3] While Wolford was gathering his belongings, he asked Bohle for a cigarette,
which required her to retrieve one from her vehicle outside. While Bohle
retrieved her cigarettes, Wolford was alone with her purse. Wolford smoked
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 46A04-1703-CR-629| September 26, 2017 Page 2 of 4
the cigarette, loaded up his belongings, and left. Later that day, Bohle went
shopping and discovered that her $720 was gone. Bohle testified that Wolford
was the only one alone with her purse and that he did not have permission to
rummage through her purse or take her money.
[4] On December 16, 2015, the State charged Wolford with theft, a Class A
misdemeanor. On December 21, 2016, Wolford was tried before the bench,
and on January 6, 2017, the trial court found Wolford guilty as charged. On
February 17, 2017, the trial court sentenced Wolford to 180 days executed in
jail and ordered him to pay restitution in the amount of $720.
Discussion and Decision
Sufficiency of the Evidence
[5] Wolford contends that the State failed to produce sufficient evidence to sustain
his theft conviction. When reviewing the sufficiency of the evidence, we
neither weigh the evidence nor resolve questions of credibility. Jordan v. State,
656 N.E.2d 816, 817 (Ind. 1995). We look only to the evidence of probative
value and the reasonable inferences to be drawn therefrom which support the
verdict. Id. If from that viewpoint there is evidence of probative value from
which a reasonable trier of fact could conclude that the defendant was guilty
beyond a reasonable doubt, we will affirm the conviction. Spangler v. State, 607
N.E.2d 720, 724 (Ind. 1993).
[6] Indiana Code section 35-73-4-2(a) provides, in part, that “[a] person who
knowingly or intentionally exerts unauthorized control over property of another
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 46A04-1703-CR-629| September 26, 2017 Page 3 of 4
person, with intent to deprive the other person of any part of its value or use,
commits theft, a Class A misdemeanor.” Here, Bohle testified that she cashed
her paycheck and placed the money in her purse and that Wolford (who knew
when Bohle got paid) was the only other person who had had access to the
purse before the cash was discovered to be missing. Bohle’s testimony is
sufficient to support an inference that Wolford stole the $720 from Bohle’s
purse. Wolford points to his testimony that he did not take the money, he
never saw the purse, and his recent breakup with Bohle provided her with a
motive to lie. The trial court was under no obligation to credit this evidence
and did not. Wolford’s argument is nothing more than an invitation to reweigh
the evidence, which we will not do. See Jordan, 656 N.E.2d at 817.
[7] The judgment of the trial court is affirmed.
May, J., and Barnes, J., concur.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 46A04-1703-CR-629| September 26, 2017 Page 4 of 4