TRIGGS v. STATE (2025)

MEMORANDUM DECISION

[1] Kollin Triggs appeals his conviction for Class A misdemeanor criminal trespass after a bench trial. Triggs raises a single issue for our review, namely, whether the State presented sufficient evidence to support his conviction. We affirm.

Facts and Procedural History

[2] Wesley Janz lives on several acres in Marion County. In late 2024, Triggs left a message in Janz's mailbox saying that he was living out of a vehicle on the southern portion of Janz's property. Triggs invited Janz to “talk.” Tr. Vol. 2, p. 20. A day or two later, Janz went to meet with Triggs, but Triggs would not talk to Janz and instead asked Janz to call him at a phone number Triggs had left on the mailbox message. Janz “didn't want to call him” and “left [Triggs] alone” for about four to six weeks. Id. at 19-20.

[3] On December 11, Janz contacted the Indianapolis Metropolitan Police Department to have Triggs removed from his property. An officer arrived and met with Janz and Triggs. At that time, Janz informed Triggs that Triggs was trespassing, did not have permission to be on Janz's property, and “to leave and ․ never come back.” Id. at 23. Triggs then left the property.

[4] On January 5, 2025, Janz heard “rustling around” on the north-end of his residence on the property. Id. at 24. When Janz went to see the source of the noise, he observed Triggs “running across [the] property back to where he had parked his car.” Id. Janz called 9-1-1, and responding officers located Triggs in his car on Janz's property. They then placed Triggs under arrest.

[5] The State charged Triggs with Class A misdemeanor criminal trespass. Janz testified at Triggs's ensuing bench trial, after which the trial court found Triggs guilty. The court entered its judgment of conviction and sentenced Triggs accordingly.

[6] This appeal ensued.

Discussion and Decision

[7] On appeal, Triggs asserts that the State failed to present sufficient evidence to support his conviction. For challenges to the sufficiency of the evidence, we consider only the probative evidence and the reasonable inferences therefrom that support the judgment of the trier of fact. Hall v. State, 177 N.E.3d 1183, 1191 (Ind. 2021). We will neither reweigh the evidence nor judge witness credibility. Id. We will affirm a conviction unless no reasonable fact-finder could find the elements of the crime proven beyond a reasonable doubt. Id.

[8] To prove that Triggs committed Class A misdemeanor criminal trespass, the State was required to show that Triggs, not having a contractual interest in the property, knowingly or intentionally entered the real property of another person after having been denied entry by the other person. Ind. Code § 35-43-2-2(b)(1) (2024); see also Appellant's App. Vol. 2, p. 13 (charging information). A person has been denied entry under that statute “when the person has been denied entry by means of ․ personal communication, oral or written ․” I.C. § 35-43-2-2(c)(1).

[9] Triggs argues that the State failed to show that Janz had denied him entry onto Janz's property. Triggs is incorrect. On December 11, Janz contacted IMPD and confronted Triggs with an officer present. Janz then informed Triggs that Triggs was to leave Janz's property and not come back. Triggs's arguments on appeal that Janz's statements to him on December 11 were insufficient are not persuasive and are merely requests for our Court to reweigh the evidence, which we will not do.

[10] We affirm Triggs's conviction for Class A misdemeanor criminal trespass.

[11] Affirmed.

Mathias, Judge.

Vaidik, J., and Pyle, J., concur.