Brown, J.
Ariel Gomez appeals his three convictions for domestic battery as class A misdemeanors. Gomez raises two issues which we revise and restate as:
I. Whether the evidence is sufficient to support his convictions; and
II. Whether his convictions violate the continuous crime doctrine.
We affirm in part and reverse in part.
Facts and Procedural History
Gomez and Maria Chavez were married in 1995, and Gomez filed a petition for dissolution of marriage on October 28, 2014. Chavez and Gomez owned property on Rochester Avenue in Indianapolis (the “Rochester Property”). On December 16, 2014, the dissolution court entered a preliminary order which ordered that Gomez would have temporary possession of “rental property rents.” Exhibits at 12.
On May 16, 2015, the dissolution court held a final dissolution hearing at which Gomez appeared in person and by counsel, Chavez appeared pro se, and a Spanish interpreter appeared. Chavez believed that the Rochester Property had been “granted to [her] legally by the Judge,” and it was her “understanding from the Judge that [she] had possession” of the property. Transcript at 8. According to Chavez, on June 21, 2015, she learned that Gomez had “lied to the Judge saying the [Rochester Property] was rented when it wasn’t rented,” that Gomez “had it ready to be rented after the Judge had granted it to [her],” and that she “found out that he was going to get in the house, the person who was going to rent the house, and [she] had to wait until the contract expired to be able to take over the house.” Id. at 10. That day, Chavez called one of her friends to see if her son, Amilcar Melendez, could help her “change the locks of the house so he wouldn’t have access to it.” Id.
Chavez and Melendez were at the Rochester Property when a woman and her boyfriend arrived in a truck. Chavez “told the renter that if he had received any deposit to ask for that because the house was not for rent because [Chavez] was going to live there.” Id. at 11. …
About ten minutes after the woman in the truck called Gomez, he arrived at the property. He was upset, banged on the front door, entered the house, and Chavez called the police. Gomez “grabbed [Chavez] by the hair [and] tried to get [her] out of the house,” and she “couldn’t and [she] didn’t want to get out of the house.” Id. at 12. He pushed her against the wall of the kitchen strongly several times, and she sustained scratches to her left arm, a cut to her elbow, and a bruise to her right knee.
….
On June 22, 2015, the State charged Gomez with four counts of domestic battery as class A misdemeanors and four counts of battery resulting in bodily injury as class A misdemeanors. … The court found Gomez guilty of three counts of domestic battery as class A misdemeanors, Counts II, III, and IV,7 and found him not guilty of the remaining charges, and sentenced him to 365 days with 359 days suspended to probation on each count to be served concurrently.
Discussion
….
The next issue is whether Gomez’s three convictions for domestic battery as class A misdemeanors violate the continuous crime doctrine. …
….
The continuous crime doctrine defines those instances where a defendant’s conduct amounts only to a single chargeable crime and prevents the State from charging a defendant twice for the same continuous offense. Koch v. State, 952 N.E.2d 359, 373 (Ind. Ct. App. 2011), trans. denied. …
….
Based upon the record and considering Chavez’s testimony describing Gomez’s acts while trying to push her out of the house, we conclude that the acts alleged in Counts II, III, and IV were sufficiently compressed in terms of time, place, singleness of purpose, and continuity of action so as to constitute a single transaction for purposes of the continuous crime doctrine. …
Conclusion
For the foregoing reasons, we affirm Gomez’s conviction for domestic battery as a class A misdemeanor on Count II and reverse his convictions on Counts III and IV.
Affirmed in part and reversed in part.
Baker, J., and May, J., concur.