Bryce A. Swihart v. State of Indiana
2017 Ind. App. LEXIS 75
| Ind. Ct. App. | 2017Background
- On Jan 13–15, 2015, Bryce A. Swihart twice presented a computer-printed $2,248.33 check purportedly drawn on Elite Motor Sales and bearing Scott Miller’s signature at two Friendly Market locations; store managers photographed the check and his ID and declined to pay.
- Elite Motor Sales’ owner testified the shop never issued such a check, never used that check paper, had never met Swihart, and never authorized payment to him.
- Marion police investigated; Swihart was charged on Apr 1, 2015 with two counts of forgery (Level 6 felonies).
- A jury convicted Swihart on both counts at an April 2016 trial; the court sentenced him to concurrent 2.5-year terms (to run consecutive to an unrelated Madison County sentence) and awarded 124 days of jail credit for this cause.
- Swihart appealed, arguing (1) insufficient evidence to sustain the convictions and (2) the trial court erred in awarding jail credit (he sought credit for more pretrial time applied in another county).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (State) | Defendant's Argument (Swihart) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sufficiency of the evidence to support two forgery convictions | Evidence showed Swihart presented the forged checks and ID, witnesses identified him, and the account owner denied issuing the checks; this supports intent to defraud | Attacks witness credibility, highlights lack of security video and urges reweighing of evidence; invokes best-evidence concerns | Affirmed. Evidence was sufficient; court will not reweigh credibility or demand absent video. |
| Calculation of pretrial jail credit | Trial court correctly applied credit for time served in this cause; other pretrial time was applied to a different, consecutive sentence per precedent | Argues he was entitled to pretrial credit from warrant service date for this case even though some time was credited to the Madison County case | Affirmed. Precedent requires jail credit be applied against the aggregate sentence when sentences run consecutively; court bound by existing Supreme Court precedent. |
Key Cases Cited
- Drane v. State, 867 N.E.2d 144 (Ind. 2007) (standard for sufficiency review; do not reweigh evidence or assess credibility)
- Shane v. State, 716 N.E.2d 391 (Ind. 1999) (when sentences are consecutive, jail credit is applied to the aggregate sentence)
- Hall v. State, 944 N.E.2d 538 (Ind. Ct. App. 2011) (discussing application of credit when incarcerated on multiple unrelated charges)
- Stephens v. State, 735 N.E.2d 278 (Ind. Ct. App. 2000) (concurrent terms entitle defendant to credit applied against each term)
- Jackson v. State, 411 N.E.2d 609 (Ind. 1980) (purpose of best-evidence rule is to ensure presentation of the best available version of evidence)