Frank T. Platt, Appellant-Defendant v. State of Indiana, Appellee-Plaintiff (2026)

MEMORANDUM DECISION

Case Summary

[1] Frank T. Platt appeals his conviction for burglary, as a Level 5 felony, and his corresponding sentence. Platt raises the following two issues for our review:

1. Whether the State presented sufficient evidence to support his conviction.

2. Whether his sentence is inappropriate in light of the nature of the offense and his character.

[2] We affirm.

Facts and Procedural History

[3] Seth Pohle lives at a home in Osgood with his parents, Michael and Becky Pohle. The home sits on “quite a few acres” that are “very wooded.” Tr. Vol. 2 at 35. There are also several “outbuildings or barns” on the property. Id.

[4] On March 20, 2025, Seth decided to “take a little walk through the woods” behind the house. Id. at 36. As he approached one of the barns on the property, he saw a Buick SUV in front of the building. Seth then observed the SUV hit a post as it tried to turn around, which “did some damage to the vehicle.” Id. at 43. Seth saw a female with dark hair near the SUV, and he heard the “engine rev on the vehicle, then the door slammed.” Id. at 43. The SUV completed its turnaround, and the driver drove “very quickly for where it was” while “honking it[s] horn all the way through.” Id. at 44. Seth ran behind the SUV for a bit and then called Michael. Seth then looked at the barn and noticed that the door was open, which was “[n]ot normal.” Id. at 46. And he saw that a bracket had been “removed” from the barn door. Id. at 47. Seth then called the police. When Michael returned home from work, he walked through the barn and noticed “some things that were missing[.]” Id. at 84.

[5] Corporal Robert Curl with the Ripley County Sheriff's Office was dispatched to the Pohles’ home. However, on his way, Corporal Curl received a report that the subject vehicle was at a BP gas station, so he went there first. Corporal Curl observed a “vehicle that ha[d] the same description” as the vehicle that had left the Pohles’ property. Id. at 102. Corporal Curl approached the car and observed Megan Myers in the passenger seat. He also noticed damage to the “front end” of the car that “would've been in the same location” as the damage to the car that hit a post at the Pohles’ barn. Id. at 103-04.

[6] Corporal Curl spoke with Myers, who “gave a story that made absolutely zero sense,” saying that she had driven into town to meet Platt but that she did not know where Platt was. Id. at 105. Corporal Curl then went to the Pohles’ residence while another officer stayed at the gas station with Myers. While at the Pohles’ house, Corporal Curl received an account of what Seth had observed. Corporal Curl returned to the gas station and confronted Myers, whose story “change[d.]” Id. at 121. Corporal Curl took Myers into custody and arrested her.

[7] During a subsequent search of the Buick, officers found items that belonged to the Pohles, a notebook that had “Frankie Platt” written on it, other items that either had “Frank Platt” or “FTP” on them, and a cell phone that was inscribed with “FTP 1987” and “Frankie@Platt.” Id. at 124, 138. Corporal Curl also reviewed security footage from the gas station. The video showed the Buick entering the gas station approximately three minutes after Seth had called his father; Platt exiting the vehicle to walk into the gas station; and Platt entering another vehicle and leaving the gas station. The next day, Seth discovered a knife in the barn that had a picture of the Confederate flag and the initials “F.T.P.” on it, which he reported to police. Id. at 53.

[8] The State charged Platt with burglary, as a Level 5 felony. The court held a jury trial on Platt's charge. During the trial, Seth, Michael, and Corporal Curl testified. In addition, the State called Myers as a witness. Myers testified that she had pleaded guilty to burglary for the incident at the Pohles’ barn. She also testified that it was Platt's idea to break into the barn, that she had assumed it was Platt's parents’ house, and that she and Platt had loaded items from the barn into her car. She further testified that she had not been honest when she spoke with police on the day of the incident and that she had lied to them because she “was scared.” Id. at 209. At the conclusion of the trial, the jury found Platt guilty as charged.

[9] Following a sentencing hearing, the court identified as aggravating Platt's criminal history and prior probation violations. The court did not identify any mitigating factors. Accordingly, the court sentenced Platt to five and one-half years in the Indiana Department of Correction. This appeal ensued.

Discussion and Decision

Issue One: Sufficiency of the Evidence

[10] Platt first contends that the State failed to present sufficient evidence to support his conviction. Specifically, Platt asserts that there was insufficient evidence because his conviction was based only on the testimony of Myers, which he contends was incredibly dubious. Under the incredible dubiosity rule, “a court will impinge on the jury's responsibility to judge the credibility of witnesses only when it has confronted ‘inherently improbable’ testimony or coerced, equivocal, wholly uncorroborated testimony of ‘incredible dubiosity.’ ” Moore v. State, 27 N.E.3d 749, 755 (Ind. 2015) (quoting Tillman v. State, 642 N.E.2d 221, 223 (Ind. 1994)).

[11] For the incredible dubiosity rule to apply, “the evidence presented must be so unbelievable, incredible, or improbable that no reasonable person could ever reach a guilty verdict based upon that evidence alone.” Wolf v. State, 76 N.E.3d 911, 916 (Ind. Ct. App. 2017). “Application of the incredible dubiosity rule is limited to cases with very specific circumstances because we are extremely hesitant to invade the province of the jury.” Smith v. State, 34 N.E.3d 1211, 1221 (Ind. 2015). For the incredible dubiosity rule to apply, there must be: “1) a sole testifying witness; 2) testimony that is inherently contradictory, equivocal, or the result of coercion, and 3) a complete absence of circumstantial evidence.” Moore, 27 N.E.3d at 756.

[12] On appeal, Platt contends that Myers’ testimony was incredibly dubious because she “was an admitted drug addict who entered into a favorable plea agreement in exchange for her testimony” and she “repeatedly lied to law enforcement.” Appellant's Br. at 13. He also contends that “there is a complete absence of independent physical or circumstantial evidence placing Platt inside or breaking into the Pohle barn,” and that his “presence with Myers at the gas station and his departure in another vehicle do not establish active participation in the burglary itself.” Id. However, contrary to Platt's argument on appeal, the incredible dubiosity rule does not apply here.

[13] First, Myers was not the sole testifying witness. Indeed, Seth and Corporal Curl testified and at least partially corroborated Myers’ version of the events. Second, Myers’ testimony was not inherently contradictory. Rather, she consistently testified that she and Platt broke into the Pohles’ barn. While there were discrepancies between Myers’ statements to the police and her trial testimony, “witness testimony that contradicts [the] witness's earlier statements does not make such testimony ‘incredibly dubious.’ ” Stephenson v. State, 742 N.E.2d 463, 498 (Ind. 2001). And nothing about Myers’ testimony was so unbelievable, incredible, or improbable that no reasonable person could ever reach a guilty verdict based on that evidence alone.

[14] Further, there was not a complete lack of circumstantial evidence. Rather, Seth testified that he had witnessed a Buick SUV leaving his property after it hit a post. A few minutes later, officers located a vehicle that matched the description of the suspect vehicle at the BP gas station and had damage consistent with the vehicle having hit the post. In addition, inside the vehicle were several items that were inscribed with Platt's name or initials, including his cell phone. Security footage from the gas station showed the Buick arriving and Platt exiting the car. And a knife with Platt's initials was found inside the barn from which the items had been stolen. Because there was not a sole testifying witness, testimony that was inherently contradictory, and a complete absence of circumstantial evidence, the incredible dubiosity rule does not apply. Platt's arguments on appeal merely seek to have this Court reassess the weight and the credibility of the evidence, which we cannot do. The State presented sufficient evidence to support Platt's conviction.¹

Issue Two: Appropriateness of Sentence

[15] Platt next asserts that his sentence is inappropriate in light of the nature of the offense and his character. Indiana Appellate Rule 7(B) provides that “[t]he Court may revise a sentence authorized by statute if, after due consideration of the trial court's decision, the Court finds that the sentence is inappropriate in light of the nature of the offense and the character of the offender.” This Court has held that “[t]he advisory sentence is the starting point the legislature has selected as an appropriate sentence for the crime committed.” Sanders v. State, 71 N.E.3d 839, 844 (Ind. Ct. App. 2017), trans. denied. And the Indiana Supreme Court has previously explained that:

The principal role of appellate review should be to attempt to leaven the outliers ․ but not achieve a perceived “correct” result in each case. Cardwell v. State, 895 N.E.2d 1219, 1225 (Ind. 2008). Defendant has the burden to persuade us that the sentence imposed by the trial court is inappropriate. Anglemyer v. State, 868 N.E.2d 482, 494 (Ind.), as amended (July 10, 2007), decision clarified on reh'g, 875 N.E.2d 218 (Ind. 2007).

Shoun v. State, 67 N.E.3d 635, 642 (Ind. 2017) (omission in original).

[16] Indiana's flexible sentencing scheme allows trial courts to tailor an appropriate sentence to the circumstances presented, and the trial court's judgment “should receive considerable deference.” Cardwell, 895 N.E.2d at 1222. Whether we regard a sentence as inappropriate at the end of the day turns on “our sense of the culpability of the defendant, the severity of the crime, the damage done to others, and myriad other factors that come to light in a given case.” Id. at 1224. The question is not whether another sentence is more appropriate, but rather whether the sentence imposed is inappropriate. King v. State, 894 N.E.2d 265, 268 (Ind. Ct. App. 2008). Deference to the trial court “prevail[s] unless overcome by compelling evidence portraying in a positive light the nature of the offense (such as accompanied by restraint, regard, and lack of brutality) and the defendant's character (such as substantial virtuous traits or persistent examples of good character).” Stephenson v. State, 29 N.E.3d 111, 122 (Ind. 2015).

[17] The sentencing range for a Level 5 felony is one year to six years, with an advisory sentence of three years. Ind. Code § 35-50-2-6(b). Here, the court sentenced Platt to five and one-half years for his burglary conviction.

[18] On appeal, Platt contends that his sentence is inappropriate in light of the nature of the offense because it “involved the entry into an unoccupied barn containing overflow items,” the crime was “not accompanied by violence, threats, or harm to any individuals,” and “the acts alleged—removing a latch and taking items from a barn—are nothing more than the material elements necessary to establish the underlying offense of burglary.” Appellant's Br. at 15. And Platt contends that his sentence was inappropriate in light of his character because his criminal history “is deeply intertwined with a long-standing opiate addiction,” he “earned his high school equivalency certificate,” he “maintained steady employment,” he has a “positive relationship” with his child, and he “expressed remorse.” Id. at 15-16.

[19] However, Platt has not met his burden on appeal to demonstrate that his sentence is inappropriate. Regarding the nature of the offense, Platt damaged the barn when he removed a bracket to gain entry, and he did so while carrying a knife. Neither damaging the building nor carrying a deadly weapon are elements of burglary, as a Level 5 felony. See I.C. § 35-43-2-1(1) (stating that a “person who breaks and enters the building or structure of another person, with the intent to commit a felony or theft therein, commits burglary, a Level 5 felony”). Platt has not shown any evidence portraying the offense in a positive light.

[20] Regarding his character, Platt has an extensive criminal history that includes twelve prior misdemeanor convictions and two prior felony convictions. In addition, Platt has been placed on probation several times, and he has violated the terms of his probation on thirteen occasions. Platt has not shown any substantial virtuous traits or persistent examples of good character that would warrant a revision to his sentence.

Conclusion

[21] The State presented sufficient evidence to support Platt's conviction. And his sentence is not inappropriate in light of the nature of the offense and his character. We therefore affirm his conviction and sentence.

[22] Affirmed.

FOOTNOTES

1.   To the extent Platt also contends that there was insufficient evidence under the general sufficiency standard, that argument must also fail. As outlined above, Myers’ testimony was not incredibly dubious. And her testimony plus the circumstantial evidence is sufficient to support his conviction.

Bailey, Judge.

Bradford, J., and Altice, J., concur.