Defendant-Appellant Eli Borom, Jr., was convicted by a jury in the Lake Superior Court of class B felony rape. The trial court subsequently sentenced him to fifteen years imprisonment. Appellant now directly appeals and raises the following three issues:
1. sufficiency of the evidence;
2. chain of custody supporting admissibility of certain evidence; and
8. sentence enhancement.
The facts adduced during trial show that during the evening of July 13, 1982, B.H. went with a friend to an East Chicago tavern to drink "pop" and to listen to music. While there, B.H. noticed Appellant at the bar. She had known him for several *714 years. At approximately 3:00 a.m. on July 14, B.H. left the tavern by herself intending to walk directly home. En route, she noticed Appellant following her. BH. testified that when she was in an alley and almost home, Appellant grabbed her by her neck, threw her to the ground, slapped her in her face and raped her. She further testified that she tried to scream but could not since Appellant covered her mouth with his hand. After Appellant was done and had left, B.H. ran to a friend's house to call the police. Michelle Fulton, the friend, testified that B.H. came to her house at approximately 8:80 a.m. and asked to use the phone to call the police because she had been raped. BH. was crying and had blood on her dress. Police Officer Sam Evans testified that he responded to B.H.'s call and arrived at the Fulton residence where he found BH. erying, nervously shaking, and bleeding from the left side of her nose. BH. was taken to Saint Catherine's Hospital where an initial physical examination revealed fresh lacerations to the left side of her nose and fresh abrasions on the back of her neck and left ankle. An initial rape screening was performed which indicated that spermatozoa were present in vaginal smears taken from B.H.
I
Appellant first challenges the sufficiency of the evidence by which he was convicted. We note that although Appellant raises this issue in his brief, he offers no argument and merely states: 'The writer considers pursuit of this issue futile and will not impose upon the Court for it's (sic) further consideration." With regard to sufficiency of the evidence questions, this Court will consider only that evidence most favorable to the State with all reasonable inferences drawn therefrom and will neither reweigh the evidence nor determine the credibility of witnesses. If there is substantial evidence to support the jury's conclusion that Appellant was guilty beyond a reasonable doubt, the jury's verdict will not be disturbed. Fields v. State, (1983) Ind.,
II
Appellant next suggests that the trial court erred by admitting into evidence, over Appellant's objection, State's Exhibit 2 since he claims the State never properly established the requisite chain of custody. State's Exhibit 2 was the Sexual Assault Evidence Kit used during B.H.'s July 14 physical examination in the emergency room at St. Catherine's Hospital Appellant concedes that the kit was taken from the emergency room and turned in to the property clerk at the East Chicago police station on July 14. He further concedes that the kit subsequently was taken during the afternoon of July 14 from the East Chicago police property room to the Northwest Indiana Toxicology Laboratory and placed in the lab's vault until August 10, 1982, when it was removed from the vault by Larry Huys, a forensic serologist, who performed tests on its contents. Appellant's objection, unsubstantiated by any argument on appeal, is that "the record is silent regarding whose custody [the kit] was in between [July 14] and August 10, 1982," while the rape kit was in the toxicology lab's vault.
To establish a proper chain of custody, the State need only provide evidence that "strongly suggests the exact whereabouts of the evidence at all times." Holt v. State, (1980)
IH
Appellant lastly suggests that "'the enhancement (sic) of the presumptive sentence of the defendant is not supported by the required criteria." Appellant's only argument in this regard is as follows:
"Trial counsel, in presenting the issue in the Motion to Correct Errors, apparently felt that the Court did not find aggravating circumstances with sufficient specifity (sic) to satisfy the requirements of the statute."
The record indicates that the trial judge made the following findings when he sentenced Appellant:
"All right. Well, the Court has reviewed the pre-sentence report and I appreciate the comments of Counsel. And one must be especially disturbed by looking at the record here. It is a clear pattern of criminal activity. It was begun as a juvenile and seems now to progressed (sic) to where we are to crimes of violence. Based upon the record, I see here, I would have no particular problem in imposing the maximum sentence of twenty (20) years. Mr. Borom, you are not an old man. Certainly-I don't know. You may be able to do something with your life. I think I would point out that it is possible that you could have been charged as a habitual offender. However, you were not. Nevertheless, in view of the record that is presented here, prior criminal record and nature of this case being a forcible rape, the judgment of this Court is that you be sentence (sic) to a term of fifteen (15) years in the proper state institution. You will receive credit for time served prior to sentencing in the amount of 123 days. The specific crime of robbery and con-fAinement certainly are aggravating circumstances (sic) along with the manner in which this crime of rape was done. That is the judgment of the Court." (emphasis added).
This Court now holds that the trial judge's statement in support of Appellant's aggravated sentence is sufficient to comply with our sentencing mandate in Spinks v. State, (1982) Ind.,
Finding no error, we affirm the trial court in all things.