RAMEY v. STATE (2025)

MEMORANDUM DECISION

Statement of the Case

[1] After fighting with his girlfriend, Jamia Simon, in a parking lot earlier that day, Kwame Ramey told her to return to the parking lot, where he gathered with several armed companions. A gun fight broke out, where Ramey, Jamia, and at least one other person fired approximately nineteen shots. Jamia sustained a gunshot wound requiring several days of hospitalization. Ramey was charged with and convicted of several offenses based on the shooting, including aggravated battery. Ramey now appeals, raising one issue for our review: Whether the State presented sufficient evidence at trial to support Ramey's conviction for aggravated battery.

[2] We affirm.

Facts and Procedural History

[3] On October 12, 2022, Ramey and his girlfriend, Jamia Simon, were working at a Wendy's restaurant. Jamia was the assistant manager and “yell[ed] at everybody for getting the orders wrong,” which Ramey “took [ ] the wrong way.” Tr. Vol. III at 37. The two argued inside the Wendy's and, when Jamia left the restaurant to buy cigarettes at the nearby Kroger fuel pump kiosk, Ramey followed her. Ramey was “grabbing [Jamia] and trying to talk” as they crossed the parking lot between the Wendy's and the kiosk. Id. at 39. The kiosk attendant, Cheyenne Clark, observed Ramey being “loud and abrasive” and “chest bumping” Jamia. Tr. Vol. II at 156.

[4] After Jamia purchased the cigarettes, she headed back to the Wendy's. Ramey “was still bumping her,” Tr. Vol. II at 157, and “eventually, they were fist fighting,” id. at 158. Jamia called her brother, Jeremy Alexander, who lived nearby, and Jeremy drove to the Wendy's. Jeremy and Ramey briefly scuffled before a law enforcement officer intervened.

[5] After the situation settled down, the officer, Jeremy, and Ramey left, and Jamia returned to the Wendy's. Sometime later, Ramey came back to the Wendy's, “grabbed” Jamia, “took [her] outside,” Tr. Vol. III at 42, and “snatched” the keys to his and Jamia's shared vehicle, id. at 44. Ramey left in the vehicle and called Jamia to tell her he was going to “kick in” the door to her home. Id. at 45. Jamia called Jeremy to take her home, but on the way, Ramey called and told them to “come back to the parking lot.” Id. at 46.

[6] The parking lot security cameras captured the following events. Ramey and two other individuals pulled into the parking lot in a white sedan, and a silver sedan with one additional individual parked nearby. Ramey and the three others got out of the vehicles and congregated in the parking lot. After several minutes, Jamia and Jeremy pulled into the parking lot in a silver sedan, parking two rows behind Ramey toward the west. Jamia's and Jeremy's mother, Alexis, pulled into the parking lot soon after.

[7] Jeremy armed himself with a firearm, exited the sedan with Jamia, and ran toward Ramey and the others. Ramey ran away toward the kiosk, where he began walking beside a man in a green windbreaker, who had just walked into the parking lot from the north. Jamia pursued Ramey, and the two briefly fought at the parking lot's north entrance. The man in the windbreaker continued walking west.

[8] The fight ended, and Jamia and Jeremy walked back toward their vehicle. The man in the windbreaker circled behind the vehicle and turned east toward Ramey's vehicle. Jamia and Jeremy began to drive away but stopped abruptly when Ramey fired a gun toward them. Jamia exited the vehicle armed with Jeremy's handgun and fired in Ramey's direction. Ramey and his companions, who were all at the east end of the parking lot by now, returned fire.

[9] As Jamia returned to her vehicle, the man in the green windbreaker ran from behind another vehicle in the parking lot and fired in her direction. Ramey fired toward Jamia around the same time. Clark, who was still attending the kiosk during the shooting, claimed that she saw Ramey fire a gun in Jamia's direction around the time Jamia was “ducking” into her car. Tr. Vol. II at 180. Clark heard “at least another pop” around this time as well. Id. Jamia was struck by a bullet in the right shoulder as she was entering the vehicle, which caused a collapsed lung and required her to spend several days in the hospital.

[10] Law enforcement officers recovered bullet casings from several locations in the parking lot, including from around: (1) Jamia's vehicle; (2) Ramey's location when he shot at Jamia's vehicle; (3) Ramey's and his companion's vehicles; and (4) the man in the windbreaker's location when he shot at Jamia. The bullet that struck Jamia was never recovered, so law enforcement officers were unable to trace the bullet to a specific firearm.

[11] The State charged Ramey with criminal recklessness as a Level 5 felony,¹ aggravated battery as a Level 3 felony,² and battery by means of a deadly weapon as a Level 5 felony ³ . The State also alleged that Ramey used a firearm in committing the offense.⁴

[12] The jury found Ramey guilty as charged, and the trial court found Ramey used a firearm in committing the offense. Due to double jeopardy concerns, the trial court only entered judgments of conviction on the criminal recklessness and aggravated battery counts. The trial court declined to enhance Ramey's sentence for his use of a firearm and sentenced Ramey to serve a total of nine years on home detention with five of those years suspended. This appeal ensued.

Discussion and Decision

The State Presented Sufficient Evidence to Support Ramey's Conviction

[13] Ramey argues that the State presented insufficient evidence at trial to support his conviction for aggravated battery as a Level 3 felony.⁵ Our standard of review for such a claim is as follows:

“A conviction is supported by sufficient evidence if ‘there is substantial evidence of probative value supporting each element of the offense such that a reasonable trier of fact could have found the defendant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.’ ” Hancz-Barron v. State, 235 N.E.3d 1237, 1244 (Ind. 2024) (quoting Willis v. State, 27 N.E.3d 1065, 1066 (Ind. 2015)). This Court reviews only the evidence most favorable to the verdict and the reasonable inferences therefrom, and will reverse only where it is shown that “no reasonable fact-finder could find the elements of the crime proven beyond a reasonable doubt.” Teising [v. State], 226 N.E.3d [780,] 783 [(Ind. 2024)].

Konkle v. State, 253 N.E.3d 1068, 1090–91 (Ind. 2025). We do not reweigh the evidence or reassess witness credibility. Id. at 1090 (quoting Teising, 226 N.E.3d at 783).

[14] In order to convict Ramey of aggravated battery as a Level 3 felony, the State had to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Ramey “knowingly or intentionally inflict[ed]” an injury on Jamia that “create[d] a substantial risk of death.” Ind. Code § 35-42-2-1.5. Ramey argues that there was insufficient evidence to prove he injured Jamia because “[b]oth [Jamia] and her mother believe the person in the green jacket was the individual who shot [Jamia].” Appellant's Br. at 11.

[15] Here, the probative evidence and reasonable inferences supporting the verdict show that Ramey and Jamia argued before the shooting, and Ramey was “physically aggressive” with Jamia. Tr. Vol. III at 40. After the argument, Ramey told Jamia to return to the parking lot, where he and several other armed individuals were waiting. Ramey and Jamia briefly fought and, as Jamia was attempting to drive away from the situation, Ramey fired at her vehicle. This prompted Jamia to exit the vehicle and fire back toward Ramey, and Jamia was then shot as she reentered her vehicle. Clark testified that she saw Ramey shoot at Jamia at the time Jamia was hit. Cf. Carr v. State, 749 N.E.2d 1153, 1154 (Ind. 2001) (concluding evidence that defendant fired in the victim's direction was sufficient to support conviction).

[16] Clearly, Ramey was not the only person who shot toward Jamia. Other individuals—including the man in the windbreaker—also appeared to shoot at her. But it is unclear from the video who fired the shot that hit her. “When there are conflicts in the evidence, the jury must resolve them.” Young v. State, 198 N.E.3d 1172, 1176 (Ind. 2022) (citing Lott v. State, 690 NE.2d 204, 208 (Ind. 1997)). The jury viewed the security footage, observed the locations and number of casings recovered from the crime scene, and heard testimony describing Ramey as the one who shot Jamia. This evidence was sufficient for the jury to determine that Ramey was the person who shot Jamia, and we cannot reweigh the evidence on appeal. See Konkle, 253 N.E.3d at 1090 (quoting Teising, 226 N.E.3d at 783). Accordingly, we affirm.⁶

[17] Affirmed.

FOOTNOTES

1.   Ind. Code § 35-42-2-2(a), (b)(2)(A).

2.   I.C. § 35-42-2-1.5.

3.   I.C. § 35-42-2-1(c)(1), (g)(2).

4.   I.C. § 35-50-2-11(b).

5.   Ramey also challenges the sufficiency of the evidence to support his “conviction[ ] for ․ battery by means of a deadly weapon.” Appellant's Br. at 16. The trial court, however, did not enter judgment of conviction on that count, and we need not evaluate the sufficiency of the evidence supporting that count because Ramey's conviction for aggravated battery is supported by sufficient evidence such that it is not being set aside or vacated, meaning there is no reason for the conviction for battery by means of a deadly weapon to potentially be reinstated. See Taflinger v. State, 698 N.E.2d 325, 327 (Ind. Ct. App. 1998) (holding that guilty verdict for a lesser included offense may be reinstated where the conviction for the greater offense has been set aside or vacated); Stubbers v. State, 190 N.E.3d 424, 430–31 (Ind. Ct. App.), trans. denied, 196 N.E.3d 685 (Ind. 2022) (holding that when a defendant is found guilty of a particular count but the trial court does not enter a judgment of conviction thereon, this court “need not address the sufficiency of the evidence to support that count”). Ramey does not challenge the sufficiency of the evidence to support his conviction for criminal recklessness.

6.   Ramey also argues that insufficient evidence supports his conviction under the theory of accomplice liability. Ramey argues that the man in the windbreaker was the person who shot Jamia and that the State presented insufficient evidence for the jury to find that Ramey was an accomplice of that man. We need not address this argument because the State presented sufficient evidence for the jury to find that Ramey was the person who shot Jamia; that is to say, Ramey was the principal and not merely an accomplice.

Felix, Judge.

Brown, J., and Scheele, J., concur.