John D. Cantrell v. State of Indiana (NFP)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
Pursuant to Ind. Appellate Rule 65(D), this Memorandum Decision shall not be regarded as precedent or cited before any court except for the purpose of establishing the defense of res judicata, collateral estoppel, or the law of the case. FILED May 14 2010, 8:51 am CLERK of the supreme court, court of appeals and tax court ATTORNEY FOR APPELLANT: ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE: JOHN C. BOHDAN Deputy Public Defender Fort Wayne, Indiana GREGORY F. ZOELLER Attorney General of Indiana ELLEN H. MEILAENDER Deputy Attorney General Indianapolis, Indiana IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA JOHN D. CANTRELL, Appellant- Defendant, vs. STATE OF INDIANA, Appellee- Plaintiff, ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) No. 02A04-0910-CR-566 APPEAL FROM THE ALLEN SUPERIOR COURT The Honorable Frances C. Gull, Judge Cause No. 02D04-0905-FC-100 May 14, 2010 MEMORANDUM DECISION - NOT FOR PUBLICATION ROBB, Judge John D. Cantrell was charged with three counts of forgery and three counts of theft, all Class D felonies. A jury found him guilty of two counts of forgery and two counts of theft and not guilty of the remaining counts. Cantrell appeals his convictions, raising one issue for our review: whether the verdicts are fatally inconsistent. We affirm. On May 4, 2009, Cantrell allegedly used counterfeit bills to purchase merchandise in three separate stores in Fort Wayne, Indiana. On May 8, 2009, the State charged Cantrell with three counts of forgery and three counts of theft corresponding to Cantrell s alleged conduct in each of the three stores.1 A jury found Cantrell guilty of two counts of forgery and two counts of theft for his conduct at two of the stores but not guilty of one count of forgery and one count of theft for his conduct at the third. The trial court sentenced Cantrell to an aggregate sentence of eight years. Cantrell now appeals his convictions. Cantrell contends that because his conduct was alleged to be the same in each of the three stores, the jury verdict finding him guilty of forgery and theft as to two stores and not guilty as to the other was hopelessly inconsistent and def[ies] all efforts to reconcile. Appeal Brief at 11. Our supreme court, however, recently held that inconsistent jury verdicts are not subject to appellate review. Beattie v. State, 924 N.E.2d 643, 649 (Ind. 2010). The court reasoned that appellate review of such claims 1 The State also charged Cantrell with one count of false reporting or informing, a Class A misdemeanor. The trial court, however, granted a directed verdict in Cantrell s favor on this charge. 2 would result in nothing more than speculation. Id. at 646. As such, appellate review of Cantrell s claim is precluded, and the jury verdict is affirmed. Affirmed. FRIEDLANDER, J., and KIRSCH, J., concur. 3
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
