MEMORANDUM DECISION Pursuant to Ind. Appellate Rule 65(D), this Memorandum Decision shall not be FILED regarded as precedent or cited before any Feb 26 2020, 9:21 am court except for the purpose of establishing CLERK the defense of res judicata, collateral Indiana Supreme Court Court of Appeals estoppel, or the law of the case. and Tax Court

ATTORNEY FOR APPELLANT ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE Donald C. Swanson, Jr. Curtis T. Hill, Jr. Deputy Public Defender Attorney General Fort Wayne, Indiana Samantha M. Sumcad Deputy Attorney General Indianapolis, Indiana

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA Marcus T. Govan, February 26, 2020 Appellant-Defendant, Court of Appeals Case No. 19A-CR-1880 v. Appeal from the Allen Superior Court State of Indiana, The Honorable Appellee-Plaintiff David M. Zent, Judge Trial Court Cause No. 02D05-1809-F3-56

Vaidik, Judge.

[1] Marcus T. Govan was convicted of Level 3 felony rape (sexual intercourse), Level 3 felony attempted rape (“other sexual conduct”), Level 6 felony

Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 19A-CR-1880 | February 26, 02020 Page 1 of 2 domestic battery, and Level 6 felony strangulation for raping, beating, and strangling the mother of one of his children, and the trial court sentenced him to thirty years. Govan now appeals, arguing that the evidence is insufficient to support his convictions.

[2] Govan acknowledges that the victim testified that he raped, beat, and strangled her. However, Govan claims that the testimony should not be believed because other parts of the victim’s testimony (such as how much she drank that night and what time he came to her house) were “contradicted” by the testimony of other witnesses. Appellant’s Br. p. 11. Although Govan claims that he is not asking us to judge the credibility of the victim, he is doing precisely that. The jury, not us, determines “not only whom to believe, but also what portions of conflicting testimony to believe.” Perry v. State, 78 N.E.3d 1, 8 (Ind. Ct. App. 2017). During closing argument, defense counsel highlighted some of the inconsistencies and argued that the victim wasn’t telling the truth. Believing the victim, the jury found Govan guilty. Because we cannot second guess that credibility determination, we affirm his convictions.

[3] Affirmed.

Najam, J., and Tavitas, J., concur.

Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 19A-CR-1880 | February 26, 02020 Page 2 of 2