Darrell Lee Moore v. State of Indiana (mem. dec.)

• Court: Indiana Court of Appeals
• Decided: June 6, 2018
• Docket: 18A-CR-28
• Status: Published

Opinion

MEMORANDUM DECISION Pursuant to Ind. Appellate Rule 65(D), this Memorandum Decision shall not be regarded as precedent or cited before any FILED court except for the purpose of establishing Jun 06 2018, 9:23 am

the defense of res judicata, collateral CLERK estoppel, or the law of the case. Indiana Supreme Court Court of Appeals and Tax Court

ATTORNEY FOR APPELLANT ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE Matthew M. Kubacki Curtis T. Hill, Jr. Indianapolis, Indiana Attorney General of Indiana

Ellen H. Meilaender Supervising Deputy Attorney General Indianapolis, Indiana

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA

Darrell Lee Moore, June 6, 2018 Appellant-Defendant, Court of Appeals Case No. 18A-CR-28 v. Appeal from the Marion Superior Court State of Indiana, The Honorable Amy Jones, Judge Appellee-Plaintiff. The Honorable David Hooper, Magistrate Trial Court Cause No. 49G08-1709-CM-33108

Bradford, Judge.

Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 18A-CR-28 | June 6, 2018 Page 1 of 5 Case Summary [1] Darrell Lee Moore appeals his conviction for Class A misdemeanor operating a

vehicle while intoxicated in a manner that endangers another. While Moore

does not dispute that he was intoxicated at the time of his arrest, he argues that

the State failed to prove that he operated his vehicle in a manner that

endangered another. We affirm.

Facts and Procedural History [2] At approximately 8:00 p.m. on September 4, 2017, Indianapolis Metropolitan

Police Officer Don Weilhamer, Jr. observed Moore’s vehicle “run [a] red light”

near 900 East Washington Street. Tr. Vol. II, p. 11. In running the light,

Moore’s vehicle disregarded a “no turn on red” sign and “was moving rather

quickly.” Tr. Vol. II, p. 11. Officer Weilhamer further observed that Moore’s

vehicle “didn’t slow down very much at all” before turning eastbound onto

Washington Street. Tr. Vol. II, p. 11. While Moore did not pull out in front of

any vehicles traveling in the eastbound lanes, there were other vehicles going

through the intersection at the time traveling in the westbound lanes. Officer

Weilhamer estimated that Moore was driving above the posted speed limit as it

took him a couple of blocks to catch up to Moore once he initiated a traffic

stop.

[3] Upon approaching Moore’s vehicle, Officer Weilhamer smelled “an odor of an

alcoholic beverage coming from the vehicle.” Tr. Vol. II, p. 13. He observed

Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 18A-CR-28 | June 6, 2018 Page 2 of 5 that Moore had slow speech and glassy, bloodshot eyes. Moore also had

difficulty finding and retrieving both his identification from his wallet and the

vehicle registration. Once Moore exited the vehicle, Officer Weilhamer “could

smell [the] odor of an alcoholic beverage on [Moore’s] breath.” Tr. Vol. II, p.

15. Moore failed three field sobriety tests: the horizontal gaze nystagmus test,

the walk and turn test, and the one leg stand test. Moore admitted that he had

been drinking and consented to a breath test, the results of which revealed

Moore’s blood alcohol concentration (“BAC”) to be .083. A search of Bureau

of Motor Vehicles records also showed that Moore had never received a valid

driver’s license and that his driving privileges were suspended.

[4] On September 5, 2017, the State charged Moore with Class A misdemeanor

operating while intoxicated, Class C misdemeanor operating with a BAC of .08

or more, Class A misdemeanor operating never having received a license, and

Class A infraction driving while suspended. Moore was found guilty of each of

the criminal charges and the infraction following a bench trial and was

sentenced to an aggregate suspended 365-day sentence.

Discussion and Decision [5] On appeal, Moore challenges the sufficiency of the evidence to sustain his

conviction for Class A misdemeanor operating while intoxicated endangering

another person.

Our standard of review with regard to sufficiency claims is well settled. In reviewing a sufficiency of the evidence claim, this

Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 18A-CR-28 | June 6, 2018 Page 3 of 5 court does not reweigh the evidence or judge the credibility of the witnesses. We will consider only the evidence most favorable to the verdict and the reasonable inferences drawn therefrom and will affirm if the evidence and those inferences constitute substantial evidence of probative value to support the judgment. A conviction may be based upon circumstantial evidence alone. Reversal is appropriate only when reasonable persons would not be able to form inferences as to each material element of the offense.

Staley v. State, 895 N.E.2d 1245, 1250 (Ind. Ct. App. 2008) (internal citations

omitted).

[6] In challenging his conviction, Moore does not dispute that he was intoxicated

at the time of his arrest, but argues that the State failed to prove the element of

endangerment. “To prove endangerment, the State must prove that the

defendant was operating the vehicle in a condition or manner that could have

endangered any person, including the public, the police, or the defendant.”

Staten v. State, 946 N.E.2d 80, 84 (Ind. Ct. App. 2011) (citation omitted,

emphasis in original).

[T]he endangerment clause does not require that the State prove a person other that the defendant was actually in the path of the defendant’s vehicle or in the same area in order to obtain a conviction. An officer does not have to wait until the defendant crosses the centerline and adds another victim to the statistics of those who have died in drunk driving accidents. Thus, it is sufficient that the defendant’s condition renders driving unsafe.

Staley, 895 N.E.2d at 1251 (citations omitted).

Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 18A-CR-28 | June 6, 2018 Page 4 of 5 [7] The facts of this case indicate that on the evening in question, Moore operated

his vehicle in an unsafe manner. Specifically Moore disregarded a “no turn on

red” sign and ran a red light. Tr. Vol. II, p. 11. In addition, Moore “didn’t

slow down very much at all” before turning onto Washington Street. Tr. Vol.

II, p. 11. While Moore did not pull out in front of any vehicles traveling in the

eastbound lanes of Washington Street, there were other vehicles going through

the intersection at the time traveling in the westbound lanes. Given that Moore

disregarded a no turn on red sign and turned into the eastbound lanes “rather

quickly” it is not unreasonable to conclude that he could have created a

dangerous situation. Tr. Vol. II, p. 11. These facts are sufficient to prove

endangerment. See Staten, 946 N.E.2d at 84.

[8] The judgment of the trial court is affirmed.

Baker, J., and Kirsch, J., concur.

Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 18A-CR-28 | June 6, 2018 Page 5 of 5