Matthew C. Elzey, Jr. v. State of Indiana (mem. dec.), 35A02-1604-CR-783

On Sept. 4, 2015, Wal‑Mart asset protection manager Rebecca Powell observed Matthew Elzey nervously in a high‑theft electronics area, remove an FM transmitter from its packaging, discard the empty packaging, and place the item in his pocket.
Elzey and a companion (Brooke Roark) walked through the store without purchasing and advanced past the point of payment toward the exit. Store personnel stopped them before they left.
When confronted, Elzey initially gave inconsistent statements about where he had left the merchandise, then attempted to place the item on a shelf; Powell recovered the item from his pocket.
Elzey was charged with theft (Class A misdemeanor) enhanced to a Level 6 felony based on a prior theft conviction; a jury found him guilty and he admitted the prior, producing a Level 6 conviction.
The trial court sentenced Elzey to 2.5 years in the Department of Correction. Elzey appealed, raising sufficiency of the evidence, sentencing‑statement adequacy, and Rule 7(B) inappropriateness challenges.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Sufficiency of evidence for theft	State: evidence of concealment and moving past payment point permits inference of intent to deprive	Elzey: he never left premises and did not deprive Wal‑Mart of value/use	Court: Conviction affirmed — concealment and passage beyond payment point suffice to infer intent to deprive
Sentencing statement adequacy	State: oral statements identifying criminal history suffice	Elzey: trial court failed to provide a sentencing statement explaining reasons	Court: No abuse — oral statement referencing criminal history provided reasonably detailed reasons
Abuse of discretion in sentence	State: sentence within statutory range and justified by criminal history	Elzey: sentence excessive given offense and circumstances	Court: No abuse — sentence supported by record and defendant's prior record
Inappropriate sentence under Rule 7(B)	State: 2.5 years appropriate given offender's character and prior leniency failures	Elzey: sentence is inappropriate relative to a typical Level 6 theft	Court: Not inappropriate — nature of offense ordinary but defendant's extensive juvenile/adult criminal history justifies top‑end sentence

Gonzalez v. State, 908 N.E.2d 338 (Ind. Ct. App. 2009) (standard for reviewing sufficiency of evidence)
Taylor v. State, 681 N.E.2d 1105 (Ind. 1997) (affirming conviction if probative evidence permits reasonable inference of guilt)
Chambliss v. State, 746 N.E.2d 73 (Ind. 2001) (concealment and removal before exit supports inference of intent to steal)
Hartman v. State, 328 N.E.2d 445 (Ind. Ct. App. 1975) (concealment near exits supports unauthorized control inference)
Anglemyer v. State, 868 N.E.2d 482 (Ind. 2007) (standards for reviewing sentencing discretion and requirement for sentencing statement)
Cardwell v. State, 895 N.E.2d 1219 (Ind. 2008) (purpose and limits of appellate review under Rule 7(B))
Phillips v. State, 869 N.E.2d 512 (Ind. Ct. App. 2007) (criminal history may be a legitimate aggravator)
Paul v. State, 888 N.E.2d 818 (Ind. Ct. App. 2008) (focus for Rule 7(B) on nature of offense and character)
Wells v. State, 2 N.E.3d 123 (Ind. Ct. App. 2014) (appellant bears burden to show sentence inappropriate)
Anderson v. State, 989 N.E.2d 823 (Ind. Ct. App. 2013) (sentencing reasons may appear in written order or oral statement)