HICKS v. STATE (2019)

MEMORANDUM DECISION

[1] Michael Hicks contends that the evidence is insufficient to support his conviction of Class A misdemeanor criminal trespass for knowingly entering Meadowlark Apartments in May 2018 after having been denied entry. At a bench trial, the State presented evidence that Hicks signed an “Official Ban/No Trespass Notice” in April 2018, which stated that Hicks was banned from Meadowlark Apartments “for life” and would be subject to arrest for criminal trespass if he returned. Ex. 1. At trial, Hicks admitted that he signed the trespass notice but claimed that after signing it, he met with a manager of the apartments and was left “under the impression” that he was not actually banned from the property. Tr. p. 31. The judge, however, discredited Hicks' testimony and found him guilty of criminal trespass. On appeal, Hicks repeats his claim that he did not think he was banned from Meadowlark Apartments because of the meeting he had with the manager. This argument is nothing more than an invitation to judge the credibility of the witness, which we decline to do. See Leonard v. State, 80 N.E.3d 878, 882 (Ind. 2017). We therefore affirm Hicks' conviction.

[2] Affirmed.

Vaidik, Chief Judge.

Kirsch, J., and Altice, J., concur.