Robert Banks, Appellant-Defendant v. State of Indiana, Appellee-Plaintiff (2026)

MEMORANDUM DECISION

Statement of the Case

[1] Robert Banks (“Banks”) appeals, following a jury trial, his four convictions for Class A misdemeanor cruelty to an animal.¹ He argues that there is insufficient evidence to support his convictions. Concluding that the evidence is sufficient to support Banks’ convictions, we affirm the trial court's judgment.

[2] We affirm.

Issue

Whether there is sufficient evidence to support Banks’ four convictions for Class A misdemeanor cruelty to an animal.

Facts

[3] The facts most favorable to the judgment reveal that on Tuesday, January 7, 2025, Desirae Tanner (“Tanner”) called 911 to report that Banks, who was her neighbor, had left his multiple dogs unattended in his house (“the house”) for at least three days. According to Tanner, she knew that no one had been to the house for at least three days because it had snowed on the previous Saturday and there were no footprints or tire tracks in the snow around the house. Tanner had also been in contact with another neighbor who apparently had not seen anyone at the house for three days.

[4] Wayne County Sheriff's Department Animal Control Officer Jessica Moore (“Officer Moore”) was dispatched to the house. Before leaving for the house, Officer Moore searched through property records to determine its owner. Officer Moore's search of the property records revealed that Banks and Kristina Sinnett (“Sinnett”) were the listed property owners.

[5] When Officer Moore, who was wearing a body camera, arrived at the house at approximately 9:00 a.m., she noticed that there were no footprints or tire tracks in the snow around the house. After exiting her vehicle, Officer Moore approached the house, looked through the window in the front door, and noticed multiple piles of dog feces and puddles of dog urine inside the house. Officer Moore's body camera recorded the scene inside the house. She also took photographs through the window in the front door. When Officer Moore knocked on the front door, four dogs began barking and ran to the door. Officer Moore took photographs of the dogs, and her body camera also recorded them. It “was clear” to Officer Moore “that nobody had been at the house for multiple days[.]” (Tr. Vol. 2 at 108).

[6] When Officer Moore returned to her vehicle, she heard “a shriek” from inside the house. (Tr. Vol. 2 at 93). Officer Moore ran back to the front door and heard dogs fighting inside the house. When Officer Moore knocked at the front door, only one of the four dogs ran to the door. Officer Moore walked around the house to the back door but did not see the other three dogs. Concerned that one of the dogs was severely injured or dead, Officer Moore submitted a search warrant request so that she could enter the house.

[7] After obtaining a search warrant that permitted her “to seize any and all animals” in the house, Officer Moore returned to the house with three sheriff's department officers at approximately 4:45 p.m. (Tr. Vol. 2 at 97). She was wearing her body camera, which filmed the officers’ execution of the search warrant. When the officers approached the house, they noticed that there were tire tracks in the driveway and footprints in the snow. In addition, although the house's storm door was closed, the front door was open.

[8] The officers entered the house and observed dog feces and urine on the floor. Officer Moore did not see any food or water set out for the dogs. The officers initially noticed three dogs, a female bully-type dog (“the female dog”), a male tan bully-type dog (“the tan dog”), and a male black dog (“the black dog”). Some of the dogs had scabs and were missing hair in different places on their bodies. Officer Moore removed the three dogs from the house, and the other officers helped her place the dogs in their vehicles.

[9] Thereafter, Officer Moore found a fourth dog, a male gray and tan bully-type dog (“the gray and tan dog”) hiding under a bed in one of the bedrooms. The bedroom had been accessible to the other three dogs because the door had been left open. Officer Moore noticed that the gray and tan dog had multiple lacerations and puncture wounds on his legs, abdomen, and chest. Further, it appeared that someone had placed a white substance on one of the dog's actively bleeding wounds in an effort to treat the wound. The officers lifted up the bed and coaxed the gray and tan dog out from under it. Because the dog walked with a significant limp, the officers used a towel to make a sling and carried him out of the house to an officer's vehicle.

[10] Further, the officers found a male black cat (“the cat”) in another bedroom. Officer Moore noticed that the bedroom was “trashed” with multiple objects covering the floor. (Tr. Vol. 2 at 111). Further, although Officer Moore noticed a litter box, it had not been cleaned in “some time[,]” and it was full of objects other than litter and cat excrement. (Tr. Vol. 2 at 100). Officer Moore placed the cat in a carrier and carried him to an officer's vehicle.

[11] The officers transported the dogs to a rescue organization. The following morning, the gray and tan dog was transported to a veterinarian, who examined the dog, gave him a medicated bath, and prescribed him antibiotics and pain medication. The veterinarian was unable to stitch one of the dog's wounds because the wound was “like hamburger meat.” (Tr. Vol. 2 at 104).

[12] On January 10, 2025, Dr. Melissa Justice (“Dr. Justice”), a veterinarian with the Indiana State Board of Medical Health, examined and evaluated the dogs and the cat seized from the house. Dr. Justice evaluates animals removed from their homes and gives them “[a] body condition score[,]” which “is an evaluation of the amount of fat and muscle tissue that's present on the animal.” (Tr. Vol. 2 at 126). The normal range for a body condition score is from four to five. Further, a normal body condition score does not automatically mean that an animal has not been neglected. Rather, Dr. Justice also looks at the care that the animals have been provided and the conditions in which they have been living to make a general overall assessment of the animals.

[13] Following an examination of the dogs and cat that had been removed from the house, Dr. Justice completed a report that she gave to Officer Moore. The report included multiple photographs of the animals and their injuries. Further, the report revealed that the gray and tan dog's left legs were significantly swollen, resulting in lameness and an altered gait. He also had severe bite wounds on his left front leg and less severe bite wounds and skin abrasions on his remaining three legs, both ears, face, neck, and chin. Dr. Justice gave the gray and tan dog a body condition score of four.

[14] Dr. Justice's report further revealed that the female dog had patchy hair loss on her abdomen, pelvis, and the base of her tail. Her skin in these areas was crusty, scaly, and had small abrasions. Dr. Justice gave the female dog a body condition score of four. The tan dog had a circular area of hair loss on his neck and shoulder. That area of the dog also included scaly skin and several abrasions. Dr. Justice gave the tan dog a body condition score of four. In addition, Dr. Justice gave the black dog a body condition score of three point five and the cat a score of four.

[15] In April 2025, the State charged Banks with five counts of Class A misdemeanor cruelty to an animal, one count for each of the four dogs and one count for the cat. At Banks’ August 2025 trial, the jury heard the facts as set forth above. In addition, the jury saw the photographs that Officer Moore had taken at the house as well as the videos from her body camera that had been taken during her first visit to the house and during the execution of the search warrant. Further, Dr. Justice's report was admitted into evidence.

[16] In addition, Dr. Justice testified, as set forth in her report, that a normal body condition score does not automatically mean that an animal has not been neglected. Dr. Justice further testified that, at a minimum, animals should be provided with food and water once every twenty-four hours. According to Dr. Justice, she considered an animal that goes longer than twenty-four hours without being provided with food and water to be a neglected animal. Dr. Justice further testified that she had been concerned about the accumulation of feces and urine in the house. According to Dr. Justice, both urine and feces can emit ammonia, which can irritate animals’ eyes and respiratory tracts and cause respiratory infections. In addition, animals can pass intestinal parasites in their feces. Dr. Justice further testified that when animals with open wounds are exposed to feces and urine, those wounds can become infected. Dr. Justice also testified that when dogs fight, they should be separated so that they do not fight again.

[17] In addition, one of the officers who participated in the execution of the search warrant testified that he had not observed food or water set out for the dogs. During cross-examination, the officer acknowledged that in one of the photographs taken during the execution of the search warrant, “[t]here appear[ed] to be a food or water bowl[.]” (Tr. Vol. 2 at 120).

[18] During closing argument, the deputy prosecutor (‘the deputy prosecutor”) argued that he did not think that the custody element of the statute was in question because Tanner had identified Banks as being her neighbor and the person to whom the animals belonged. Further, according to the deputy prosecutor, Officer Moore had also testified that Banks was one of the house's owners, and the animals had been found inside the house. Therefore, according to the deputy prosecutor, Banks had custody of the animals.

[19] The deputy prosecutor further argued that neglect meant the failure to provide or arrange to provide the animals with food or drink if the animals were dependent upon the person for food or drink. In addition, the deputy prosecutor argued that Banks had left the animals unattended for three days as evidenced by the lack of footprints and tire tracks in the snow around the house and the accumulation of feces and urine in the house. According to the deputy prosecutor, if no one had been to the house to let the animals outside or to clean up the animals’ feces and urine, “[i]t [ ] [was] just common sense that no one was providing them with food or water.” (Tr. Vol. 2 at 148). The deputy prosecutor further argued that the gray and tan dog was a victim of neglect because Banks had not provided reasonable care or sought veterinary care for the dog's injuries that had seriously endangered the dog's health. In addition, the deputy prosecutor reminded the jury that Dr. Justice had testified that a normal body condition score does not automatically mean that an animal has not been neglected.

[20] During Banks’ closing argument, Banks’ counsel argued that there had been a lot of snow and that maybe Banks had planned to be out of town and the person who was supposed to care for the animals “couldn't get there because of the weather.” (Tr. Vol. 2 at 151). Regarding the injured dog, Banks’ counsel argued that Banks could have called the veterinarian that day when he saw the dog's injuries and “couldn't get in [to see the veterinarian] until the next day.” (Tr. Vol. 2 at 151).

[21] The jury convicted Banks of four counts of Class A misdemeanor cruelty to an animal, one count for each of the four dogs. In addition, the jury acquitted Banks of the charge concerning the cat.

[22] The trial court sentenced Banks to 365 days in the county jail for each of the four convictions and ordered the sentences to run concurrently with each other. Further, the trial court suspended 335 days of the 365-day sentence, resulting in a thirty (30) day sentence in the county jail. After calculating Banks’ jail time credit, the trial court found that Banks had twelve (12) days to serve in the county jail. The trial court also ordered Banks to complete sixteen (16) hours of work crew within the first 100 days of his suspended sentence.

[23] At the end of the sentencing hearing, the trial court advised Banks of his right to appeal his convictions and asked him if he wished to do so. Banks responded, “Absolutely.” (Tr. Vol. 2 at 180). The trial court told Banks that it would appoint appellate counsel for him and did so on September 22, 2025.

[24] Banks now appeals.

Decision

[25] At the outset, we note that the State asks us to dismiss Banks’ appeal because he failed to timely file his notice of appeal by filing it one day late. Under Appellate Rule 9(A)(5), the right to appeal “shall be forfeited” unless the Notice of Appeal is timely filed. Indiana Appellate Rule 9(A)(1) provides that a party must file “a Notice of Appeal with the Clerk ․ within thirty (30) days after the entry of a Final Judgment is noted in the Chronological Case Summary [“(CCS)”].” In a criminal matter, sentencing is the final judgment. Haste v. State, 967 N.E.2d 576, 576 (Ind. Ct. App. 2012). Here, a CCS entry reveals that the trial court sentenced Banks on August 28, 2025. Thus, his notice of appeal was due to be filed no later than Monday, September 29, 2025. However, Banks did not file his notice of appeal until one day later on September 30, 2025. Accordingly, Banks’ notice of appeal was not timely filed, and he has forfeited his right to appeal. See In re Adoption of O.R., 16 N.E.3d 965, 971 (Ind. 2014). Further, Banks has not proffered an extraordinarily compelling reason why his forfeited right to appeal should be restored. See id.

[26] Nevertheless, we are mindful of the fact that, at the sentencing hearing, Banks expressed to the trial court his “[a]bsolute[ ]” desire to appeal his convictions, and the trial court told Banks that it would appoint appellate counsel for him. (Tr. Vol. 2 at 180). If we were to foreclose Banks’ direct appeal, a petition for post-conviction relief would inevitably follow. Further, Banks has surely served his twelve days in the county jail and completed his sixteen hours of work crew. In addition, we note that Bank's notice of appeal was just one day late. Thus, in the interests of justice, efficiency, and an orderly disposition of this appeal, we elect to address this case on the merits.

[27] We now turn to Banks’ argument that there is insufficient evidence to support his four convictions for Class A misdemeanor cruelty to an animal. We disagree.

[28] “Our standard for reviewing evidentiary sufficiency challenges is well established, as we have made clear that 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.” Konkle v. State, 253 N.E.3d 1068, 1090 (Ind. 2025) (cleaned up). “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.” Id. (cleaned up). We review 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.” Id. at 1090-91 (cleaned up).

[29] The jury convicted Banks of four counts of cruelty to an animal pursuant to Indiana Code § 35-46-3-7,² which provides as follows:

(a) A person who:

(1) has a vertebrate animal in the person's custody; and

(2) recklessly, knowingly, or intentionally abandons or neglects the animal;

commits cruelty to an animal, a Class A misdemeanor[.]

[30] Banks first argues that “[t]here was no evidence presented by the State that Mr. Banks had custody of the dogs.” (Banks’ Br. 13). However, our review of the evidence most favorable to the judgment reveals that Tanner testified that Banks was her neighbor and that he had left his multiple dogs unattended in the house. Further, Officer Moore testified that Banks and Sinnett were listed in the property records as the owners of the house. In addition, the dogs were found in the house. This evidence supports the jury's finding that Banks had custody of the dogs. Banks’ argument is an invitation to reweigh the evidence, which we will not do. See Konkle, 253 N.E.3d at 1090.

[31] Banks further argues that “there was no evidence presented by the State that the dogs were neglected.”³ (Banks’ Br. 12). He specifically points out that the dogs’ body condition scores were normal.

[32] First, Dr. Justice specifically testified, as set forth in her report, that a normal body condition score does not automatically mean that an animal has not been neglected. Further, Indiana Code § 35-46-3-0.5 ⁴ provides, in relevant part, as follows:

(6) “Neglect” means:

(A) endangering an animal's health by failing to provide or arrange to provide the animal with food or drink, if the animal is dependent upon the person for the provision of food or drink;

* * * * *

(D) failing to:

(i) provide reasonable care for; or

(ii) seek veterinary care for;

an injury or illness to a dog or cat that seriously endangers the life or health of the dog or cat[.]

[33] Our review of the evidence most favorable to the judgment reveals that Banks left his four dogs unattended in the house for three days as evidenced by the lack of footprints and tire tracks in the snow around the house and the accumulation of dog feces and urine in the house. Based on this evidence, it was reasonable for the jury to find that the dogs had not been provided with food and water every twenty-four hours. In addition, Dr. Justice testified that if an animal goes longer than twenty-four hours without being provided with food and water, then Dr. Justice would consider that animal to be neglected. This evidence supports the jury's finding that Banks neglected the dogs. Banks’ argument is another invitation to reweigh the evidence, which, as previously stated, we will not do. See Konkle, 253 N.E.3d at 1090.⁵

[34] We conclude that the evidence is sufficient to support the jury's finding that Banks neglected his four dogs. Accordingly, we affirm his four convictions for Class A misdemeanor cruelty to an animal.

[35] Affirmed.

FOOTNOTES

1.   Ind. Code § 35-46-3-7.

2.   We note that this statute has been amended effective July 1, 2026.

3.   The State argues that because Indiana Code § 35-46-3-7 is written in the disjunctive, “[b]y failing to challenge that evidence establishing abandonment, [Banks] has implicitly conceded that it was sufficient” and “has waived any argument to the contrary.” (State's Br. 17). However, because the State's theory of the case at trial was that Banks had neglected rather than abandoned the four dogs, we will address Banks’ argument.

4.   We note that this statute has been amended effective July 1, 2026.

5.   Because we have determined that the four dogs were neglected based on the failure to provide food and water, as defined in Indiana Code § 35-46-3-0.5(6)(A), we not need determine whether the gray and tan dog was neglected based on the failure to provide care, as defined in Indiana Code § 35-46-3-0.5(6)(D).

Pyle, Judge.

Bradford, J., and Kenworthy, J., concur.