Micky Brian Reyes, Appellant-Defendant v. State of Indiana, Appellee-Plaintiff (2026)

MEMORANDUM DECISION

Case Summary

[1] On the night of September 29, 2024, Juan Castillo went to the Four Winds Casino, where he won over one thousand dollars. After texting with a woman he had known for years, Castillo drove to her location to meet up with her. There, Edward Perry and Micky Reyes approached him, brandishing weapons, and robbed him of money and certain personal property. Castillo called the police after the robbery and Perry and Reyes were arrested. The State charged Reyes with Level 3 felony aiding, inducing, or causing armed robbery, and after a jury found him guilty as charged, the trial court sentenced Reyes to eleven years of incarceration. Reyes contends that the evidence is insufficient to sustain his conviction. Because we disagree, we affirm.

Facts and Procedural History

[2] On September 29, 2024, Castillo went to the Four Winds Casino in South Bend. Castillo won between $1200.00 and $1800.00 while gambling, and began receiving messages and calls from Mya Hershberger, a woman he had known for “[a]round five or six years.” Tr. Vol. II p. 30. The two discussed spending time together, and, at some point, Castillo informed Hershberger that he had “just won big[.]” Tr. Vol. II p. 34. Hershberger told Castillo she was at 1309 Elwood Avenue in South Bend. Castillo drove to the address and attempted to park at the front of the house. Hershberger came outside and told Castillo to park in an alley behind the house.

[3] After Castillo parked his vehicle in the alley, Hershberger “kind of disappeared[,]” so Castillo began to return to his vehicle. Tr. Vol. II p. 36. Hershberger “went back out” to retrieve Castillo and then asked him to wait outside so she could “put the dogs away.” Tr. Vol. II p. 36. Castillo waited for Hershberger but “felt like something was wrong.” Tr. Vol. II p. 36. As he again began to return to his vehicle, Perry and Reyes approached him. Perry brandished a gun, and Reyes held a knife.

[4] Perry instructed Castillo to get on his knees, put his hands up, and give them everything he had. Perry demanded Castillo's keys and telephone. Castillo threw a cellular telephone, cash, and his wallet on the ground. Reyes picked up the money and Castillo's wallet and removed Castillo's debit card from the wallet after Perry asked Castillo where the debit card was and how much money was on it. Reyes gave Castillo's debit card to Perry. When Reyes leaned over to pick up Castillo's things, the cover on his face came off, and Castillo was able to see Reyes's face.

[5] Perry asked Castillo for the PIN number to his card. Perry then asked Reyes if Reyes wanted to “take over” while Perry went to the ATM, and Reyes replied, “I don't care. I can stay here.” Tr. Vol. II p. 39. While Reyes and Perry were discussing who would stay guard, a white SUV with tinted windows pulled up, which Reyes and Perry believed was a police vehicle, causing them to run into the house. Castillo called the police with another cellular telephone.

[6] South Bend Patrol Officer Faith Quintana arrived at the scene at around 3:36 a.m., and within minutes of her arrival, she observed Perry walk out of 1309 Elwood Avenue. Castillo identified Perry as one of the men who had robbed him. After more officers arrived, a woman came out of the house, was detained, and asked, “if I just give you the card, will you just let me go.” Tr. Vol. II p. 55. She then volunteered Castillo's debit card. Officers recovered Castillo's wallet and car keys from the grass nearby where the robbery had taken place.

[7] After officers separated everyone who was in the house and brought them out, Castillo identified Reyes and Perry as the men who had robbed him. When Officers searched Perry, they recovered $1223.00 in cash in his pockets. Police also recovered a handgun hidden inside a couch when they searched the home.

[8] On September 30, 2024, the State charged Reyes with Level 3 felony aiding, inducing, or causing armed robbery. A jury trial commenced on June 2, 2025, after which Reyes was found guilty as charged. On July 3, 2025, the trial court sentenced Reyes to eleven years of incarceration, with nine years executed and two years to be served on community corrections.

Discussion and Decision

[9] Reyes contends that the evidence is insufficient to sustain his conviction.

When reviewing the sufficiency of the evidence to support a conviction, appellate courts must consider only the probative evidence and reasonable inferences supporting the verdict. It is the fact-finder's role, not that of appellate courts, to assess witness credibility and weigh the evidence to determine whether it is sufficient to support a conviction. To preserve this structure, when appellate courts are confronted with conflicting evidence, they must consider it most favorably to the trial court's ruling. Appellate courts affirm the conviction unless no reasonable factfinder could find the elements of the crime proven beyond a reasonable doubt. It is therefore not necessary that the evidence overcome every reasonable hypothesis of innocence. The evidence is sufficient if an inference may reasonably be drawn from it to support the verdict.

Drane v. State, 867 N.E.2d 144, 146–47 (Ind. 2007) (brackets, citations, emphasis, and quotations omitted). In other words, in reviewing the sufficiency of the evidence, “we consider only the evidence and reasonable inferences most favorable to the convictions, neither reweighing evidence nor reassessing witness credibility” and “affirm the judgment unless no reasonable factfinder could find the defendant guilty.” Griffith v. State, 59 N.E.3d 947, 958 (Ind. 2016).

[10] To prove that Reyes committed Level 3 felony armed robbery, the State had to prove that Reyes knowingly or intentionally took property from Castillo by using or threatening the use of force or by putting him in fear, while armed with a deadly weapon. Ind. Code § 35-42-5-1. Moreover, Indiana Code section 35-41-2-4 provides, in part, that “[a] person who knowingly or intentionally aids, induces, or causes another person to commit an offense commits that offense[.]” “It is not necessary that a defendant participate in every element of a crime to be convicted of that crime under a theory of accomplice liability.” Bruno v. State, 774 N.E.2d 880, 882 (Ind. 2002). “In determining whether there was sufficient evidence for purposes of accomplice liability, we consider such factors as: (1) presence at the scene of the crime; (2) companionship with another at the scene of the crime; (3) failure to oppose commission of crime; and (4) course of conduct before, during, and after occurrence of crime.” Id.

[11] Reyes contends that the evidence was insufficient to prove that he acted as an accomplice to Perry, sufficient only to prove that he was merely present. While mere presence is insufficient to establish accomplice liability, Green v. State, 937 N.E.2d 923, 927 (Ind. Ct. App. 2010), trans. denied, we conclude that the State produced ample evidence to establish that Reyes was not merely present.

[12] The State produced evidence that Reyes and Perry initiated the robbery together, as they were both armed when they approached Castillo, brandishing their weapons. Reyes and Perry discussed who would watch Castillo while the other went to the ATM with Castillo's debit card, and when the robbery was interrupted, both ran into the same house. Nothing in the record suggests that Reyes had made any effort to oppose the robbery, and in fact, when Perry had instructed Castillo to give them his things, Reyes had collected the items that Castillo had thrown, even opening Castillo's wallet, removing his debit card, and handing it to Perry. The fact that Reyes had attempted to conceal his face further supports the conclusion that he had not been merely present at the scene.

[13] Reyes's reliance on Porter v. State, 715 N.E.2d 868 (Ind. 1999) is unavailing.¹ In Porter, the Indiana Supreme Court concluded that the State failed to present sufficient evidence that Porter and another man acted in concert where, although the two men were on the same basketball court at the same time, there was “no evidence that the two were even aware of one another's presence at the time the incidents occurred.” 715 N.E.2d at 872. As mentioned, the evidence here clearly supports the conclusion that Reyes played an active role in Castillo's robbery. Reyes's arguments to the contrary amount to nothing more than a request for this Court to reweigh the evidence, which we will not do. See Griffith v. State, 59 N.E.3d 947, 958 (Ind. 2016).

[14] We affirm the judgment of the trial court.

FOOTNOTES

1.   We are further unpersuaded by Reyes's attempts to distinguish the facts of his case from Mills v. State, 198 N.E.3d 720 (Ind. Ct. App. 2022), trans. denied, or Shaaf v. State, 54 N.E.3d 1041 (Ind. Ct. App. 2016), and, in any event, we agree with the State that the facts here are much more similar to those of Wieland v. State, 736 N.E.2d 1198, 1202 (Ind. 2000). In Wieland, the Indiana Supreme Court upheld Wieland's conviction because[a]s Priest's companion, Wieland accompanied him into the store, knowing that Priest was armed and intended to rob the store. Wieland did nothing to oppose the commission of any of the crimes. He did not withdraw from the enterprise. To the contrary, he entered the store with Priest, personally took store merchandise, stood nearby Priest and watched as Priest confined the store employees and committed robbery, left the store and escaped from the scene in the company of Priest, and later shared in the money obtained by Priest in the robbery.736 N.E.2d at 1203. Similarly, Reyes arrived at the scene with Perry, brandishing a knife, personally collected Castillo's valuables and stood by while Perry threatened Castillo with the gun, and even discussed staying with Castillo while Perry took his debit card to an ATM before ultimately leaving the scene with Perry.

Bradford, Judge.

Pyle, J., and Kenworthy, J., concur.