Lucille D. Vance 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 Dec 22 2009, 10:15 am CLERK of the supreme court, court of appeals and tax court ATTORNEY FOR APPELLANT: ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE: BRIAN J. MAY South Bend, Indiana GREGORY F. ZOELLER Attorney General of Indiana Indianapolis, Indiana ANGELA N. SANCHEZ Deputy Attorney General Indianapolis, Indiana IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA LUCILLE D. VANCE, Appellant-Defendant, vs. STATE OF INDIANA, Appellee-Plaintiff. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) No. 71A05-0910-CR-555 APPEAL FROM THE ST. JOSEPH SUPERIOR COURT The Honorable Jerome Frese, Judge Cause No. 71D03-0810-FD-01097 DECEMBER 22, 2009 MEMORANDUM DECISION - NOT FOR PUBLICATION SULLIVAN, Senior Judge Following a bench trial, Lucille D. Vance (Vance) was convicted of Prostitution After Having Two Prior Convictions of Prostitution, a class D felony. She was sentenced to three years incarceration. Vance appeals claiming that the evidence was insufficient to support the conviction. Although she concedes that this Court will not reweigh the evidence, Appellant s Br. at 6, that is precisely what she requests us to do. She asserts that having been arrested in the past for similar offenses, [she] knew better than to exchange sex for money, Appellant s Br. at 6, and she denied having any conversation with the undercover police officer involving prostitution. Our review of the evidence most favorable to the verdict reveals that undercover South Bend police officer Skibins was driving his unmarked vehicle and passed Vance who was walking in the other direction. She turned and waved at him to come back. He did so and parked along the curb. Vance got in the vehicle and said Are you looking to have some fun tonight? Tr. at 10. There was conversation about oral sex and that Skibins only had $20. Vance stated that he needed $30 and he said that he d have to go to an ATM for more money whereupon he drove to a predetermined location where they were pulled over by officers who made the arrest. As earlier stated, in assessing the validity of a criminal conviction, this court does not reweigh the evidence nor do we judge the credibility of the witnesses. Henley v. 2 State, 881 N.E.2d 639, 652 (Ind. 2008). The evidence in this case supports the conviction. See Harwell v. State, 821 N.E.2d 381 (Ind. Ct. App. 2004) Affirmed. MAY, J., and VAIDIK, 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.
