Lamont Holloway argued that the state didn’t prove that he was the one who stole a television and gaming system from his neighbor, but the Indiana Court of Appeals held that the evidence supports his burglary and theft convictions.
Holloway lived in a townhome next door to Valerie Suggs, and he often saw her leave for work and return home. He also knew when her daughter returned home from school. On Oct. 26, 2011, Suggs locked up her house and left for work around 2 p.m. When her daughter returned home from school around 4:30 p.m., she discovered that the home had been broken into and several items were missing.
A television and gaming system belonging to Suggs were sold to a local pawnshop that afternoon by Holloway. He was charged with and convicted of Class B felony burglary and Class D felony theft. He received an aggregate 20-year sentence in the Department of Correction, which was enhanced because he is a habitual offender.
In Lamont Holloway v. State of Indiana, 49A02-1207-CR-548, Holloway claimed the evidence didn’t show he was the one who broke into the home, that there’s no DNA evidence linking him to the crime, and no one saw him entering or leaving Suggs’ home. He also argued the fact he was in possession of the stolen items shortly after they were taken from the home doesn’t permit a conclusion he took them.
“A reasonable inference from the evidence is that Holloway was the person who entered Suggs’ home and took the property,” Judge Elaine Brown wrote. “While the trial court could have made different inferences from the evidence, we cannot say that the inferences made by the court here were unreasonable.”