Opinion
24A-CR-545
08-13-2024
Danielle Sayone Mitchell, Appellant-Defendant v. State of Indiana, Appellee-Plaintiff
ATTORNEY FOR APPELLANT Christopher Kozelichki South Bend, Indiana ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE Theodore E. Rokita Indiana Attorney General Daylon L. Welliver Deputy Attorney General Indianapolis, Indiana
Pursuant to Ind. Appellate Rule 65(D), this Memorandum Decision is not binding precedent for any court and may be cited only for persuasive value or to establish res judicata, collateral estoppel, or law of the case.
Appeal from the St. Joseph Superior Court The Honorable Jenny Pitts Manier, Judge The Honorable Elizabeth A. Hardtke, Magistrate Trial Court Cause No. 71D05-2307-CM-2175
ATTORNEY FOR APPELLANT
Christopher Kozelichki South Bend, Indiana
ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE
Theodore E. Rokita Indiana Attorney General
Daylon L. Welliver Deputy Attorney General Indianapolis, Indiana
MEMORANDUM DECISION
ALTICE, CHIEF JUDGE
Case Summary
[¶1] Danielle S. Mitchell appeals her conviction for resisting law enforcement, a Class A misdemeanor. She contends that the evidence was insufficient to support her conviction.
[¶2] We affirm.
Facts & Procedural History
[¶3] In the early morning hours of July 16, 2023, South Bend Police Department Officer Ryan Hintz was on patrol when he observed a black Jeep Compass approaching in the oncoming lane at a high rate of speed in a 35 mph zone. He made a U-turn as the Jeep passed and then had to drive 65 to 70 mph to catch up. Meanwhile, the driver of the Jeep, later identified as Mitchell, used a bike lane on the right to pass a slower vehicle and almost side-swiped another vehicle parked along the road. Seconds later, when Mitchell turned right onto a dark residential street, Officer Hintz initiated the emergency lights and siren of his marked police vehicle as he turned to pursue Mitchell.
[¶4] For the next thirty seconds, Mitchell continued driving and passed multiple areas where she could have pulled over. She disregarded a stop sign while turning left onto another street, and then someone inside the Jeep - Mitchell had three passengers - tossed a "big plastic baggie" out of the window before Mitchell stopped further down the street. Transcript at 19. In all, Mitchell drove two to three blocks after Officer Hintz activated his lights and siren, and no other vehicles were being operated in the area of the pursuit.
During his pursuit, Officer Hintz did not see the object thrown from the Jeep, but it is evident on the dashcam video that was admitted into evidence at trial and viewed by Officer Hintz after the arrest. The baggie was never recovered by police.
[¶5] The State charged Mitchell with Class A misdemeanor resisting law enforcement, and a bench trial was held on February 2, 2024. The trial court found Mitchell guilty and sentenced her to time served - two days.
[¶6] Mitchell now appeals, challenging the sufficiency of the evidence.
Discussion & Decision
[¶7] Our standard of review is well-settled:
When reviewing the sufficiency of evidence supporting a conviction, we neither reweigh the evidence nor assess the credibility of witnesses. Fix v. State, 186 N.E.3d 1134, 1138 (Ind. 2022). "When there are conflicts in the evidence, the [trier of fact] must resolve them." Young v. State, 198 N.E.3d 1172, 1176 (Ind. 2022). Thus, on appeal, we consider only the probative evidence and the reasonable inferences supporting the conviction and will affirm "unless no reasonable fact-finder could find the elements of the crime proven beyond a reasonable doubt." Fix, 186 N.E.3d at 1138 (quoting Jackson v. State, 50 N.E.3d 767, 770 (Ind. 2016)).Sorgdrager v. State, 208 N.E.3d 646, 650 (Ind.Ct.App. 2023), trans. denied.
[¶8] To obtain a conviction here, as charged, the State was required to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Mitchell knowingly or intentionally fled from Officer Hintz, a law enforcement officer, after he had, by visible or audible means, identified himself and ordered her to stop. See I.C. § 35-44.1(a)(3).
[¶9] Mitchell does not dispute that Officer Hintz's operation of his police vehicle's siren and emergency lights constituted visible and audible means of identifying himself and ordering her to stop. She claims only that the evidence was insufficient to establish that she knowingly or intentionally fled from Officer Hintz. Mitchell argues that she drove only a "relatively short" distance of two or three blocks, stopped less than a minute after Officer Hintz initiated the stop, and cooperated with police after stopping. Appellant's Brief at 7. We reject this invitation to reweigh the evidence.
[¶10] There was ample circumstantial evidence to support the trial court's determination that Mitchell knowingly fled from Officer Hintz. After Officer Hintz made a U-turn to follow Mitchell's speeding vehicle, Mitchell drove evasively, dangerously passing a vehicle on the right and then quickly turning right into a dark residential area. One could infer from this behavior that she was aware of Officer Hintz's presence and was trying to evade him. Then when Officer Hintz activated his lights and siren, Mitchell drove another two or three residential blocks, over a period of about thirty seconds, and failed to stop at a stop sign before turning left onto another street. Right after making this maneuver, someone from inside Mitchell's vehicle threw a baggie out of the window before Mitchell eventually stopped further down the road. The totality of this evidence supports the conviction, and thus Mitchell's sufficiency argument lacks merit.
[¶11] Judgment affirmed.
Bailey, J. and Mathias, J., concur.