The Indiana Court of Appeals has upheld the conviction of Daniel Romero, who was found guilty of burglary resulting in serious bodily injury. The court's decision, issued on September 3, 2026, confirms Romero's 35-year prison sentence for his actions against his ex-girlfriend and her friend. This ruling is significant as it reinforces the legal consequences of violent behavior in domestic situations.
Romero's case began in December 2024 when he broke into the home of his ex-girlfriend, Latasha Ibarra, shortly after their breakup. During the incident, he attacked Ibarra and her friend Miguel Cardoso, leading to serious injuries for Cardoso. The court's ruling addresses several key issues raised by Romero during his appeal, including claims of juror bias and the sufficiency of evidence for his conviction.
The dispute arose after Romero and Ibarra ended their five-year relationship. Following the breakup, Ibarra changed the locks on her home. Despite this, Romero attempted to maintain contact with Ibarra and her children. On the night of the incident, he drove to Ibarra's house, armed with a handgun and a wrench, and forcibly entered the home. Witnesses testified that Romero attacked Cardoso with the handgun before shooting him in the shoulder.
Romero was charged with multiple offenses, but the State pursued only charges of burglary as a Level 1 felony and a Level 2 felony. After a trial, Romero was convicted of the Level 1 felony and sentenced to 35 years in prison. He appealed the conviction, raising three main issues: whether the trial court abused its discretion in denying his motions to remove a juror and for a mistrial, whether the evidence was sufficient to support his conviction, and whether his sentence was inappropriate.
In its ruling, the court affirmed the trial court's decisions on all counts. Judge Felix, along with Chief Judge Tavitas and Judge Bradford, concluded that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying Romero's motions regarding juror bias. The court found that the juror in question had no actual bias and could remain impartial. The ruling stated, "I don’t have any basis to believe this juror can be anything but the unbiased and impartial juror that we expect her to be and all of our jurors to be."
Additionally, the court determined that the State presented sufficient evidence to support Romero's conviction. The evidence showed that Romero entered Ibarra's home with the intent to commit a felony, armed with deadly weapons. The court noted that Romero's actions, including the use of a wrench and a handgun, demonstrated a clear intent to inflict harm.
As for the impact of the ruling, this decision reinforces the legal standards for juror impartiality and the sufficiency of evidence in violent crime cases. It also highlights the serious consequences of domestic violence and the legal system's commitment to addressing such behavior. The ruling may serve as a precedent for similar cases in the future, emphasizing the importance of protecting victims in domestic situations.
Looking ahead, Romero has the option to appeal the decision to the Indiana Supreme Court. However, details were not available in the court filing regarding any related cases or potential future actions. The outcome of this case may influence how similar cases are handled in the future, particularly concerning juror bias and the evidence required for convictions in domestic violence incidents.