Donte L. Curry, Appellant-Defendant v. State of Indiana, Appellee-Plaintiff (2025)

MEMORANDUM DECISION

Case Summary

[1] Donte L. Curry appeals his convictions for two counts of Level 3 felony dealing in a narcotic drug and one count of Level 4 felony dealing in a narcotic drug, all arising from a series of controlled purchases involving a confidential informant (C.I.). On appeal, Curry challenges the sufficiency of the evidence supporting his convictions, asserting that the C.I.’s testimony was unreliable.

[2] We affirm.

Facts & Procedural History

[3] In October and December 2023, the Fort Wayne Police Department coordinated a series of controlled narcotics buys involving a C.I. and Curry. Each transaction was prearranged through text message communications between the C.I. and Curry. Detectives Craige Wise and Amanda Miller conducted both pre- and post-buy searches of the C.I. and the C.I.’s vehicle to confirm the absence of drugs and other contraband. The C.I. was equipped with a concealed audio recording device and provided with pre-recorded buy money.

[4] Specifically, on October 10, the C.I. contacted Curry through text messages and arranged to meet him at Millbrook Apartments. The C.I. entered the apartment and met with Curry. The C.I. gave Curry $300 in exchange for 2.83 grams of heroin. After the transaction, the C.I. returned to the detectives, who recovered the narcotics. During a second controlled buy on October 18, the C.I. met Curry at a Marathon gas station parking lot. Curry arrived at the location in a maroon Buick LeSabre with an unidentified woman in the passenger seat. The C.I. approached the vehicle and handed $300 to the woman, who passed it to Curry. In return, the C.I. received 2.98 grams of heroin and 1.18 grams of cocaine. The entire exchange lasted approximately 45 seconds. A third controlled buy was conducted on December 4. This time the C.I. met with Curry inside an apartment stairwell. The C.I. again gave Curry $300 in exchange for 1.74 grams of heroin and 0.85 grams of cocaine. The final controlled buy occurred on December 12. The C.I. met Curry at an apartment complex off New Haven Avenue. The C.I. gave Curry $400 and received 4.77 grams of heroin and 3.29 grams of fentanyl.

[5] On June 12, 2024, the State charged Curry with five counts of dealing in cocaine or a narcotic drug: one Level 2 felony, three Level 3 felonies, and one Level 4 felony. Each of the charges was enhanced due to Curry having a prior conviction for dealing heroin. A jury trial was held on October 22 and 23, 2024.

[6] At trial, the C.I. testified about her role in each of the four controlled buys and identified Curry as the individual who sold the drugs in each transaction. The C.I. described each controlled buy in specific detail, including Curry's physical appearance, the nature of their conversations, and the hand-to-hand exchanges. Additionally, the C.I. disclosed that she agreed to participate in the investigation while facing several pending charges and acknowledged receiving benefits in connection with that cooperation. The State subsequently dropped several of the C.I.’s pending charges.

[7] Detectives John Greenlee and Darin Strayer offered additional testimony as to their surveillance of the controlled buys in which they participated. Detective Greenlee stated that he recognized the voice of a person he knew to be Curry from the audio recordings recovered from the C.I. Detective Strayer testified that he observed a maroon Buick LeSabre parked in front of a residence on Burgess Street shortly before the second controlled buy, which involved a maroon Buick LeSabre, and then, after the buy, found that same vehicle at the residence with Curry at the top of the porch steps.

At the conclusion of the evidence, the jury found Curry guilty on Counts 2, 3 and 5, and not guilty on Counts 1 and 4. The court subsequently sentenced Curry to an aggregate term of sixteen years.

Discussion & Decision

[8] Curry challenges the sufficiency of the evidence to support his convictions for dealing in narcotics. Specifically, Curry asserts that “no reasonable jury could believe the C.I.’s testimony.” Appellant's Brief at 16. He contends that the C.I.’s cooperation agreement with the State, the benefits she received, and her prior criminal charges rendered her testimony unreliable.

[9] Our standard of review is well settled:

For sufficiency of the evidence challenges, we consider only probative evidence and reasonable inferences that support the judgment of the trier of fact. On sufficiency challenges, we will neither reweigh evidence nor judge witness credibility. We will affirm the conviction unless no reasonable fact-finder could find the elements of the crime proven beyond a reasonable doubt.

Hall v. State, 177 N.E.3d 1183, 1191 (Ind. 2021) (citations omitted).

[10] At trial, the C.I. testified that she arranged to meet Curry at specific locations and that she gave Curry money in exchange for various narcotics. The C.I. recounted the substance type and quantity exchanged at each meeting and identified Curry as the individual with whom she carried out the exchanges. Although the C.I. could not recall every peripheral detail, her testimony was direct and specific with respect to each transaction and the identification of Curry. The C.I. also disclosed the benefits she received in exchange for her cooperation, including the dismissal of multiple criminal charges. The jury was aware of these incentives and had the opportunity to weigh that information in evaluating the C.I.’s credibility. Further, the State introduced corroborative evidence from multiple detectives who executed the controlled buys. Detective Greenlee testified that he recognized Curry's voice on audio surveillance recordings from three of the four buys and then observed Curry leaving the scene.

[11] Curry's argument that the C.I. was not credible amounts to a request that this Court reweigh the evidence and substitute our judgment for that of the jury, which we cannot do. See Bell v. State, 31 N.E.3d 495, 500 (Ind. 2015). The evidence is sufficient to support Curry's convictions.

[12] Judgement affirmed.

Altice, Chief Judge.

Judges Pyle and DeBoer concur. Pyle, J. and DeBoer, J., concur.