David G. Pike v. State of Indiana (mem. dec.)

• Court: Indiana Court of Appeals
• Decided: July 30, 2018
• Docket: 18A-CR-205
• Status: Published

Opinion

MEMORANDUM DECISION Pursuant to Ind. Appellate Rule 65(D), FILED this Memorandum Decision shall not be Jul 30 2018, 11:03 am regarded as precedent or cited before any CLERK court except for the purpose of establishing Indiana Supreme Court Court of Appeals the defense of res judicata, collateral and Tax Court

estoppel, or the law of the case.

ATTORNEY FOR APPELLANT ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE Andrew B. Arnett Curtis T. Hill, Jr. Indianapolis, Indiana Attorney General of Indiana Michael Gene Worden Deputy Attorney General Indianapolis, Indiana

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA

David G. Pike, July 30, 2018 Appellant-Defendant, Court of Appeals Case No. 18A-CR-205 v. Appeal from the Shelby Superior Court State of Indiana, The Honorable R. Kent Apsley, Appellee-Plaintiff. Judge Trial Court Cause No. 73D01-1607-F6-267

Pyle, Judge.

Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 18A-CR-205 | July 30, 2018 Page 1 of 5 Statement of the Case [1] Davis G. Pike (“Pike”) appeals his conviction following a bench trial of Level 6

felony operating a vehicle with a schedule I or II controlled substance in the

body causing serious bodily injury.1 He argues that there is insufficient

evidence to support his conviction. Concluding that the evidence is sufficient,

we affirm Pike’s conviction.

[2] We affirm.

Issue Whether there is sufficient evidence to support Pike’s conviction for Level 6 felony operating a vehicle with a schedule I or II controlled substance in the body causing serious bodily injury. 2

Facts [3] The facts most favorable to the verdict reveal that in May 2015, Pike was

driving a vehicle with his nine-months-pregnant girlfriend, Samara Bedell

(“Bedell”), as a passenger in the back seat. Pike turned left into oncoming

traffic while his ability to see the oncoming traffic was obscured by a truck, and

his vehicle was struck by an oncoming van. A seriously injured Bedell was

1 IND. CODE § 9-30-5-4. 2 Pike also argues that there is insufficient evidence to support his conviction of Level 6 felony operating a vehicle while intoxicated. However, the sentencing order provides that the trial court “enter[ed] no judgment as to Count I, Operating a Vehicle While Intoxicated Causing Serious Bodily Injury, a Level 6 Felony, a factually included offense under Count II.” (App. Vol. 2 at 35). Because Pike was not convicted of operating a vehicle while intoxicated, there is no such conviction to appeal.

Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 18A-CR-205 | July 30, 2018 Page 2 of 5 lifelined to a severe trauma facility where she was diagnosed with a ruptured

uterus, and her baby died. At the time of the crash, Pike had THC active

metabolites in his blood.

[4] The trial court convicted Pike of Level 6 felony operating a vehicle with a

schedule I or II controlled substance in his body causing serious bodily injury.

Pike now appeals.

Decision [5] Pike argues that there is insufficient evidence to support his conviction for Level

6 felony operating a vehicle with a schedule I or II controlled substance causing

serious bodily injury. Our standard of review for sufficiency of the evidence

claims is well settled. We consider only the probative evidence and reasonable

inferences supporting the verdict. Drane v. State, 867 N.E.2d 144, 146 (Ind.

2007). We do not reweigh the evidence or judge witness credibility. Id. We

will affirm the conviction unless no reasonable fact finder could find the

elements of the crime proven beyond a reasonable doubt. Id. The evidence is

sufficient if an inference may be reasonably drawn from it to support the

verdict. Id. at 147.

[6] In order to convict Pike of Level 6 felony operating a vehicle with a schedule I

or II controlled substance in his body causing serious bodily injury, the State

had the burden to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Pike caused serious

bodily injury to Bedell while operating a vehicle with a schedule I or II

controlled substance or metabolite in his body. See I.C. § 9-30-5-4. Pike’s sole

Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 18A-CR-205 | July 30, 2018 Page 3 of 5 argument is that “his driving was not the substantial cause of [Bedell’s] injury.”

(Pike’s Br. 11).

[7] Pike has waived appellate review of this argument because his brief, conclusory

argument is supported neither by citation to authority nor cogent argument. See

Smith v. State, 822 N.E.2d 193, 202-03 (Ind. Ct. App. 2005) (“Generally, a party

waives any issue raised on appeal where the party fails to develop a cogent

argument or provide adequate citation to authority and portions of the

record.”), trans. denied.

[8] Waiver notwithstanding, the Indiana Supreme Court has explained that “the

State must prove the defendant’s conduct was a proximate cause of the victim’s

injury or death.” Abney v. State, 766 N.E.2d 1175, 1178 (Ind. 2002). In other

words, the State must prove that the victim’s injury was a foreseeable result of

the defendant’s conduct. Hopson v. State, 95 N.E.3d 531, 533 (Ind. Ct. App.

2018).

[9] Here, it is foreseeable that a passenger will suffer serious bodily injury where

the driver (1) makes a left turn in front of oncoming traffic when his view is

obstructed, and (2) has active THC metabolites in his blood. This evidence is

sufficient to support Pike’s conviction for Level 6 felony operating a vehicle

with a schedule I or II controlled substance in his body causing serious bodily

injury.

Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 18A-CR-205 | July 30, 2018 Page 4 of 5 [10] Affirmed.

Vaidik, C.J., and Barnes, Sr.J., concur.

Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 18A-CR-205 | July 30, 2018 Page 5 of 5