Orlando Dejuan Denae Mitchell v. State of Indiana (mem. dec.)

• Court: Indiana Court of Appeals
• Decided: May 16, 2017
• Docket: 71A04-1608-CR-1835
• 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 May 16 2017, 11:26 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 Donald J. Berger Curtis T. Hill, Jr. Law Office of Donald J. Berger Attorney General of Indiana South Bend, Indiana George P. Sherman Deputy Attorney General Indianapolis, Indiana

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA

Orlando Dejuan Denae Mitchell, May 16, 2017 Appellant-Defendant, Court of Appeals Case No. 71A04-1608-CR-1835 v. Appeal from the St. Joseph Superior Court State of Indiana, The Honorable Paul E. Singleton, Appellee-Plaintiff Magistrate Trial Court Cause No. 71D01-1602-CM-874

Crone, Judge.

Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 71A04-1608-CR-1835| May 16, 2017 Page 1 of 4 Case Summary [1] Orlando Dejuan Denae Mitchell appeals his conviction, following a bench trial,

for class A misdemeanor resisting law enforcement. Mitchell asserts that the

State presented insufficient evidence to support his conviction. Finding the

evidence sufficient, we affirm.

Facts and Procedural History [2] The facts most favorable to the conviction indicate that in the early morning

hours of February 5, 2016, South Bend Police Department Officer Joshua

Brooks was patrolling the area of Miami Street and Indiana Avenue. Officer

Brooks was wearing his police uniform and was driving his marked police

vehicle. Officer Brooks activated his vehicle’s emergency lights and initiated a

traffic stop of a red Chevrolet Impala due to a burned-out headlight. The driver

of the Impala, Mitchell, pulled the vehicle to the side of the road. Mitchell

exited the Impala, turned and made eye contact with Officer Brooks, and then

“took off running.” Tr. Vol. 2 at 8. Officer Brooks followed Mitchell and

yelled, “[S]top, police.” Id. at 18. However, Officer Brooks eventually lost

sight of Mitchell.

[3] Officer Brooks returned to his police vehicle and checked the Impala’s license

plate and registration. The vehicle was registered to Kiera Shell. Officer

Brooks attempted to call Shell, but Shell’s grandmother, Jane Hardy, answered

the phone. Hardy gave Officer Brooks Mitchell’s name and told the officer that

Mitchell may be the person who was driving Shell’s vehicle. Mitchell is the

Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 71A04-1608-CR-1835| May 16, 2017 Page 2 of 4 father of two of Shell’s children, and Shell sometimes allowed him to use her

vehicle. On the night in question, Shell left her keys in the vehicle but did not

know who had driven it.

[4] The State charged Mitchell with class A misdemeanor resisting law

enforcement. Following a bench trial, the trial court found Mitchell guilty as

charged and sentenced him to thirty days in jail. This appeal ensued.

Discussion and Decision [5] Mitchell contends that the State presented insufficient evidence to support his

conviction. When reviewing a claim of insufficient evidence, we neither

reweigh the evidence nor assess witness credibility. Bell v. State, 31 N.E.3d 495,

499 (Ind. 2015). We look to the evidence and reasonable inferences drawn

therefrom that support the conviction, and will affirm if there is probative

evidence from which a reasonable factfinder could have found the defendant

guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. Id. In short, if the testimony believed by the

trier of fact is enough to support the conviction, then the reviewing court will

not disturb it. Id. at 500.

[6] To convict Mitchell of his offense as charged, the State was required to prove

beyond a reasonable doubt that he knowingly fled from Officer Brooks after

Officer Brooks, by visible or audible means, identified himself and ordered

Mitchell to stop. See Ind. Code § 35-44.1-3-1(a)(3). Mitchell concedes that all

the elements of the offense of class A misdemeanor resisting law enforcement

were established except for his identity as the perpetrator of the offense.

Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 71A04-1608-CR-1835| May 16, 2017 Page 3 of 4 Specifically, he asserts that “the events took place on a dark night and though

the subject vehicle was illuminated and the driver was standing next to the

vehicle, the identity of the driver is certainly questionable.” Appellant’s Br. at

9. Moreover, he points out that Shell was “uncertain” if Mitchell drove her car

on the night in question, and that he also presented alibi evidence that he was

with Davalta Hassan, the mother of five of his children, at the time of the

offense. Id.

[7] However, during trial, Officer Brooks positively identified Mitchell as the driver

of the Impala who ran from him after he ordered him to stop. Indeed, Officer

Brooks was quite confident in his identification and testified that, when

Mitchell stepped out of the Impala, the officer’s view of him “was great. He

was lit up very well by my vehicle. My spotlight was on. All of my overheads

were on so the plate was clear, the suspect was clear.” Tr. Vol. 2 at 11. This

evidence was sufficient to establish Mitchell’s identity as the perpetrator of the

offense. Mitchell’s claims to the contrary amount to a request for us to reweigh

the evidence and reassess witness credibility, and we will not. We affirm his

conviction for class A misdemeanor resisting law enforcement.

[8] Affirmed.

Baker, J., and Barnes, J., concur.

Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 71A04-1608-CR-1835| May 16, 2017 Page 4 of 4