SHOCKLEY v. STATE (2024)

MEMORANDUM DECISION

Case Summary

[1] Corey R. Shockley appeals his conviction, following a bench trial, for class A misdemeanor intimidation. He contends that the State presented insufficient evidence to support his conviction. Finding the evidence sufficient, we affirm.

Facts and Procedural History

[2] By March 2021, when the events leading to this appeal occurred, Shockley and Shelby Kinslow had been dating for “[a]bout a year” and were living together. Tr. Vol. 2 at 13. Kinslow worked as a night auditor at a Boone County hotel and had been on the job for a few weeks. Her shift ran from 11:00 p.m. until 7:00 a.m.

[3] On March 24, Shockley “g[o]t angry” with Kinslow. Id. at 15. That night, while Kinslow was at work, the couple argued via text message exchange. Shockley's messages to Kinslow were laced with profanity. Shockley texted that Kinslow was a “l[y]ing f***ing b***h[.]” Ex. Vol. 3 at 6. He told her that he was “on [his] way” to the hotel and that he would “f***ing come straight through the f***ing building b***h[,] keep playing[.]” Id. at 8, 9. Kinslow texted, “You can't come i[n,] you know that[,]” and Shockley replied, “I'll break the f***ing window then[.]” Id. at 4. Kinslow texted, “Where are you[?]!” Id. at 6. Shockley replied, “Everywhere you're not going to be[.]” Id. Kinslow told Shockley: “They'll know you f***ing did it[,] there's cameras all over this f***ing place[,] ․ [w]hatever [you're] planning on f***ing doing Corey.” Id. at 10. Shockley replied, “I'll park straight in the f***ing middle to the front doors and make sure nobody can get through[,] ․ [t]hen come in[;] even if you don't open the door[,] I'll break that [s**t].” Id. He told Kinslow that he was “flipping” Kinslow's truck, which he was driving that night. Id. at 7. And he asked, “You think I'm playing[?]” Id. at 11. Throughout the exchange, Kinslow sent several messages to Shockley, telling him to “stop” and “quit” what he was doing. Id. at 4-7, 11.

[4] Shockley drove to Kinslow's work and tried to open the hotel's sliding glass doors. He used “[a] lot of curse words” and told Kinslow that she was a “bad person[.]” Tr. Vol. 2 at 17. Kinslow was “[s]cared” and called her manager, Amber Thomas. Id. at 9, 18. When Thomas arrived at the hotel, she saw Shockley “across the parking lot[,]” and she noticed that Kinslow appeared “frantic” and “scared.” Id. at 9. After Kinslow read Shockley's text messages to Thomas, Thomas called the police and remained with Kinslow until Kinslow's shift ended. Shockley “show[ed] up [at the hotel] multiple times throughout the night.” Id. When Kinslow's shift ended, her aunt picked her up from work so that she would not have to return to the home she shared with Shockley.

[5] Lebanon Police Department Officer Tyler Winings responded to the dispatch. He spoke with Kinslow about the incident and noticed that her “hands and arms were shaking” and that she was “in fear” and “seemed distressed.” Id. at 21. Officer Winings took pictures of the text message exchange from Winslow's cell phone. He tried to contact Shockley but was unsuccessful.

[6] On April 5, 2021, the State charged Shockley with class A misdemeanor intimidation. A bench trial was held on September 21, 2023. The trial court found Shockley guilty as charged. On November 2, the court imposed a sentence of one year suspended to probation. The court also imposed a no-contact order with Kinslow. This appeal ensued.

Discussion and Decision

[7] Shockley challenges the sufficiency of the evidence supporting his conviction. “When reviewing a challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence underlying a criminal conviction, we neither reweigh the evidence nor assess the credibility of witnesses.” Bailey v. State, 979 N.E.2d 133, 135 (Ind. 2012). “The evidence—even if conflicting—and all reasonable inferences drawn from it are viewed in a light most favorable to the conviction.” Id. If the finder of fact heard evidence of probative value from which it could have inferred the defendant's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, we must affirm the conviction. Brown v. State, 827 N.E.2d 149, 152 (Ind. Ct. App. 2005).

[8] To convict Shockley of class A misdemeanor intimidation as charged here, the State was required to prove that he communicated a threat to Kinslow with the intent that she be placed in fear that the threat will be carried out. Ind. Code § 35-45-2-1(a)(4) (2019). In this context, “threat” means “an expression, by words or action, of an intention” to “unlawfully ․ damage property” or “unlawfully subject a person to physical confinement or restraint[.]” Ind. Code § 35-45-2-1(d)(1), -(2) (2019).

[9] Shockley's sole claim on appeal is that the State presented insufficient evidence to prove that he intended to place Kinslow in fear that his threats would be carried out. Shockley maintains that he and Kinslow engaged in “a common argument between two people in a relationship” and that “at no point did [he] threaten to harm [Kinslow] or any other person in any way.” Appellant's Br. at 6.

[10] It is well settled that “intent may be proven by circumstantial evidence.” McCaskill v. State, 3 N.E.3d 1047, 1050 (Ind. Ct. App. 2014). Intent can be inferred from a defendant's conduct and the natural and usual sequence to which such conduct logically and reasonably points. Id.

[11] Here, the evidence most favorable to the judgment shows that Shockley was angry with Kinslow and that he sent her numerous profanity-laced text messages. He called her a liar and a derogatory name and told her he was “on [his] way” to her workplace. Ex. Vol. 3 at 9. When she told him to “stop” and “quit,” he threatened to break windows, “flip[ ] her truck,” “come straight through the f***ing building,” park in the “middle” of the hotel's front doors and “make sure nobody [could] get through,” and break open the door. Id. at 4-11. Shockley then drove to the hotel and tried to open the hotel's sliding glass doors. He cursed at Kinslow and called her a “bad person.” Tr. Vol. 2 at 17. And he continued to “show[ ] up” at the hotel multiple times during Kinslow's shift. Id. at 9. Kinslow testified that when Shockley showed up at the hotel, she was “[s]cared.” Id. at 18. Thomas testified that Kinslow appeared “frantic” and “scared” and that she called the police after Kinslow read Shockley's text messages to her. Id. at 9. Officer Winings testified that when he spoke with Kinslow, her hands and arms were shaking, she was “in fear,” and she “seemed distressed.” Id. at 21.

[12] From this evidence, the trial court could reasonably infer that Shockley, by his text messages to Kinslow and his actions that followed, intended to place her in fear that he would unlawfully damage property and/or subject her to physical confinement or restraint. It was the trial court's prerogative to weigh the evidence and to assess witness credibility, and we will not second-guess those decisions on appeal. We conclude that the State presented sufficient evidence to support Shockley's intimidation conviction, and therefore we affirm.

[13] Affirmed.

Crone, Judge.

Bradford, J., and Tavitas, J., concur.