Ladell Davis v. State of Indiana (mem. dec.)

• Court: Indiana Court of Appeals
• Decided: June 19, 2019
• Docket: 18A-CR-2876
• Status: Published

Opinion

MEMORANDUM DECISION Pursuant to Ind. Appellate Rule 65(D), this Memorandum Decision shall not be FILED regarded as precedent or cited before any Jun 19 2019, 10:31 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 Daniel Hageman Curtis T. Hill, Jr. Marion County Public Defender Agency Attorney General of Indiana Indianapolis, Indiana Benjamin J. Shoptaw Deputy Attorney General Indianapolis, Indiana

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA

Ladell Davis, June 19, 2019 Appellant-Defendant, Court of Appeals Case No. 18A-CR-2876 v. Appeal from the Marion Superior Court State of Indiana, The Honorable Bradley Keffer, Appellee-Plaintiff. Judge Pro Tempore Trial Court Cause No. 49G12-1805-CM-14588

Bradford, Judge.

Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 18A-CR-2876 | June 19, 2019 Page 1 of 4 Case Summary [1] On October 16, 2018, Ladell Davis was convicted of Class B misdemeanor

disorderly conduct. Davis contends that the State produced insufficient

evidence to sustain his conviction by failing to prove that his conviction

occurred within the statute of limitations. Because we agree with Davis’s

contention and find it dispositive, we need not address his other contentions.

We reverse.

Facts and Procedural History [2] On May 5, 2018, the State charged Davis with two counts of Class A

misdemeanor battery resulting in bodily injury and one count of Class B

misdemeanor disorderly conduct. The disorderly conduct charge alleged that

“[o]n or about May 5, 2018, LADELL DAVIS, did recklessly, knowingly, or

intentionally make an unreasonable noise; and continued to do so after being

asked to stop[.]” Appellant’s App. Vol. II p. 14. The State, however, produced

no evidence during the October 16, 2018 bench trial to show the date on which

Davis committed the offense.1 The trial court found Davis guilty of disorderly

conduct and sentenced him to ten days of incarceration and 365 days on

probation.

1 The State dismissed both counts of battery resulting in bodily injury prior to trial.

Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 18A-CR-2876 | June 19, 2019 Page 2 of 4 Discussion and Decision [3] Davis contends that the State produced insufficient evidence to sustain his

conviction by failing to prove that the offense occurred within the statute of

limitations. When reviewing the sufficiency of evidence to support a conviction,

this court considers only probative evidence and reasonable inferences

supporting the factfinder’s decision. Young v. State, 973 N.E.2d 1225, 1226 (Ind.

Ct. App. 2012). This court will affirm a conviction unless “no reasonable fact-

finder could find the elements of the crime proven beyond a reasonable doubt.”

Id. The Indiana Supreme Court has concluded that “[i]t is a necessary burden of

the State to establish that the crime charged was committed within the statute of

limitations.” Fisher v. State, 291 N.E.2d 76, 82 (Ind. 1973). The statutory

limitation period for the prosecution of a misdemeanor offense in Indiana is

two years. Ind. Code § 35-41-4-2(a)(2).

[4] The State failed to prove that Davis committed disorderly conduct within the

statute of limitations. While the charging information alleged that Davis

committed the offense on May 5, 2018, at no point during trial did the State

present any evidence showing the date on which the alleged offense occurred.

By failing to do so, the State failed to establish that Davis committed the

misdemeanor offense within the two-year statute of limitations.

[5] The State argues that Davis has waived his contention for appellate review by

failing to raise it during trial. We have held, however, that a defendant does not

waive a statute of limitations defense by failing to raise it at trial. See Jewell v.

State, 877 N.E.2d 864, 868–69 (Ind. Ct. App. 2007) (“[W]e have held that even

Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 18A-CR-2876 | June 19, 2019 Page 3 of 4 though a defendant does not raise a statute of limitations defense at trial, a

violation of the statutory limitations period constitutes fundamental error and

cannot be waived.”), aff’d in part and vacated in part on other grounds in Jewell v.

State, 887 N.E.2d 939 (Ind. 2008).

[6] The judgment of the trial court is reversed.

Crone, J., and Tavitas, J., concur.

Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 18A-CR-2876 | June 19, 2019 Page 4 of 4