Timothy W. Moore, Appellant-Defendant,
State of Indiana, Appellee-Plaintiff
from the Hamilton Superior Court. The Honorable J. Richard
Campbell, Judge. Trial Court Cause No. 29D04-1403-FD-219.
FOR APPELLANT: Jill M. Acklin, McGrath, LLC, Carmel, Indiana.
FOR APPELLEE: Gregory F. Zoeller, Attorney General of
Indiana, Christina D. Pace, Deputy Attorney General,
of the Case
Timothy W. Moore appeals his conviction for failure to
register as a sex offender, as a Class D felony, following a
jury trial. Moore presents a single issue for our review,
namely, whether the State presented sufficient evidence to
support his conviction. We affirm.
and Procedural History
Following his conviction for child molesting in 2007, Moore
registered as a sex offender with the Hamilton County
Sheriff's Department. As a registrant, Moore was required
to check in with the Sheriff's Department annually, and
he was subject to random home visits by law enforcement.
Moore was also required to notify the Sheriff's
Department of any address changes. When he moved to another
residence within Hamilton County in 2010, Moore notified the
Sheriff's Department of the move. However, after Moore
was evicted from that residence, Moore moved to Kentucky in
March 2014 without notifying the Sheriff's Department.
On March 12, 2014, Hamilton County Sheriff's Detective
Kija Ireland, who had performed random home visits at
Moore's residence, observed that Moore's mobile home
was gone from the property where he had lived. Detective
Ireland discovered that Moore had moved to Kentucky without
notifying the Sheriff's Department. Accordingly, the
State charged Moore with failure to register as a sex
offender, as a Class D felony. A jury found him guilty as
charged. The trial court entered judgment and sentence
accordingly. This appeal ensued.
Moore contends that the State presented insufficient evidence
to support his conviction. Our standard of review for
sufficiency of the evidence claims is well-settled. Tobar
v. State, 740 N.E.2d 109, 111 (Ind. 2000).
In reviewing the sufficiency of the evidence, we examine only
the probative evidence and reasonable inferences that support
the verdict. We do not assess witness credibility, nor do we
reweigh the evidence to determine if it was sufficient to
support a conviction. Under our appellate system, those roles
are reserved for the finder of fact. Instead, we consider
only the ...