Tavis S. Corbin, Appellant-Defendant v. State of Indiana, Appellee-Plaintiff (2026)

MEMORANDUM DECISION

[1] Tavis Corbin appeals his convictions for murder and attempted murder as well as his adjudication as a habitual offender. Corbin also challenges his resulting aggregate sentence. Corbin raises three issues for our review, which we restate as follows:

1. Whether the fact-finder was obliged to accept Corbin's evidence of insanity even though no experts supported it.

2. Whether the fact-finder was obliged to accept Corbin's unsupported assertion that he acted in self-defense.

3. Whether Corbin's acts of murder and attempted murder require concurrent sentences.

[2] We affirm Corbin's convictions and sentence.

Facts and Procedural History

[3] In May 2020, Corbin went to a party at William Wolfe's apartment in Delaware County. Corbin took a handgun and methamphetamine with him. He and others used the methamphetamine during the party. Corbin got high, became paranoid, and thought two other partygoers, Troy Sandifar and Faith Sharrock, were going to rob him. Corbin then shot both Sandifar and Sharrock. Sandifar died from his wounds, and Sharrock suffered serious bodily injuries.

[4] The State charged Corbin with murder and attempted murder. The State further alleged Corbin to be a habitual offender and filed a firearm enhancement against Corbin. Corbin waived his right to a jury trial and interposed an insanity defense.

[5] At Corbin's ensuing bench trial, Wolfe and Sharrock, among others, testified against Corbin. The court then called Bobby Hatfield, who has a Ph.D. in psychology, to testify to Corbin's mental state at the time of the shooting. Dr. Hatfield testified that “there was no evidence of legal insanity at the time” Corbin shot Sandifar and Sharrock. Tr. Vol. 3, p. 12.

[6] The court then called Rebecca Mueller, who has an M.D. in psychiatry. Dr. Mueller testified that, based on her interview with Corbin and his medical history, “he was insane at the time of the commission” of the offenses. Id. at 25. However, during the State's questioning, Dr. Mueller made clear that her assessment was based on Corbin having informed her that he had not used methamphetamine at a time proximate to the offenses. When the State thus presented evidence to Dr. Mueller that Corbin had in fact been high on methamphetamine at that time, Dr. Mueller “change[d her] opinion” and concluded that Corbin “was sane at the time of the offense[s].” Id. at 32, 38-39.

[7] Corbin also testified in his own defense. In contrast to his insanity defense, Corbin testified that he acted in self-defense when he shot Sandifar and Sharrock. In particular, he testified that he thought Sandifar and Sharrock were going to rob him, and he thought Sandifar was armed. He therefore shot them both. Id. at 74-75.

[8] Following the trial, the court found that Corbin had presented “no credible evidence that [he] acted in self[-]defense ․” Appellant's App. Vol. 4, p. 186. The court further found that the experts’ testimony made clear that Corbin was legally sane at the time of the offenses. The court thus found Corbin guilty as charged. The court also adjudicated him to be a habitual offender, and the court found that the State had proven the firearm enhancement. The court then sentenced Corbin to consecutive terms of seventy years for the murder of Sandifar and forty-five years for the attempted murder of Sharrock.

[9] This appeal ensued.

1. The trial court properly rejected Corbin's insanity defense.

[10] On appeal, Corbin first asserts that the trial court erred when it did not find him guilty by reason of insanity. We review the fact-finder's rejection of an affirmative defense the same way we review any sufficiency-of-the-evidence challenge. See, e.g., Blattert v. State, 241 N.E.3d 29, 42 (Ind. Ct. App. 2024), trans. denied. In particular, “we consider only the probative evidence and the reasonable inferences therefrom that support the judgment of the trier of fact.” Id. “We will neither reweigh the evidence nor judge witness credibility.” Id.

[11] Corbin's argument on this issue disregards that standard of review. He argues that his medical history and witness testimony of his behavior at times proximate to the shootings supported his insanity defense. However, the two medical experts testified that he was sane. The trial court's rejection of his defense is therefore supported by the record, and we will not reconsider it.

2. The trial court properly rejected Corbin's claim of self-defense.

[12] Likewise, Corbin argues that the trial court should have credited his claim of self-defense. But Corbin's argument here is premised entirely on his own testimony, which the trial court expressly found not credible. We will not reassess that determination. The trial court properly rejected Corbin's claim of self-defense.

3. The trial court was not required by law to order Corbin's sentences to run concurrently.

[13] Last, Corbin asserts that his shooting of Sandifar and Sharrock were so closely related as to constitute a single episode of criminal conduct, which, in turn, requires the entry of concurrent sentences. But, as the State aptly points out, Indiana Code section 35-50-1-2(c) (2019) expressly excludes crimes of violence from that general rule, and murder and attempted murder are crimes of violence under subsection (a) of that statute. Thus, Corbin's argument fails.

Conclusion

[14] For all of these reasons, we affirm Corbin's convictions and sentence.

[15] Affirmed.

Mathias, Judge.

Pyle, J., and Weissmann, J., concur.