Opinion
No. 20A04-1102-CR-123
08-29-2011
WILLIE SIMS, Appellant-Defendant, v. STATE OF INDIANA, Appellee-Plaintiff.
ATTORNEY FOR APPELLANT : PETER D. TODD Elkhart, Indiana ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE : GREGORY F. ZOELLER Attorney General of Indiana RICHARD C. WEBSTER Deputy Attorney General Indianapolis, Indiana
Pursuant to Ind.Appellate Rule 65(D),
this Memorandum Decision shall not be
regarded as precedent or cited before any
court except for the purpose of
establishing the defense of res judicata,
collateral estoppel, or the law of the case.
ATTORNEY FOR APPELLANT:
PETER D. TODD
Elkhart, Indiana
ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE:
GREGORY F. ZOELLER
Attorney General of Indiana
RICHARD C. WEBSTER
Deputy Attorney General
Indianapolis, Indiana
APPEAL FROM THE ELKHART SUPERIOR COURT
The Honorable Charles Carter Wicks, Judge
Cause No. 20D05-1001-CM-16
FRIEDLANDER , Judge
Following a jury trial, Willie Sims was convicted of Operating a Vehicle While Intoxicated, as a class A misdemeanor. On appeal, Sims argues that there was insufficient evidence to convict him of operating a vehicle while intoxicated.
Ind. Code Ann. § 9-30-5-2(b) (West, Westlaw through 2011 Pubs. Laws approved and effective through 06/28/2011).
We affirm.
On August 17, 2009, Officer Jason Ray of the Elkhart City Police Department was on routine patrol when he observed a southbound Toyota turn northbound without signaling. After the Toyota turned, both driver's side tires were completely over the double yellow center lines on the road and the Toyota proceeded in this manner for approximately twenty-five feet before pulling the vehicle into the proper lane. Pedestrians and other vehicles were in the area at the time. Officer Ray followed the vehicle and activated his lights to initiate a traffic stop.
Officer Ray approached the vehicle and the driver identified himself as Willie Sims. Officer Ray noticed the strong odor of alcohol on Sims's breath and that Sims had bloodshot eyes and slurred speech. Sims admitted to Officer Ray that he had been drinking a beer and took a shot before he left a friend's house. Officer Ray administered three field sobriety tests: the horizontal gaze nystagmus test, the walk-and-turn test, and the one-legged stand test. Sims failed all three tests. Sims also refused to submit to a chemical breath test. Officer Ray arrested Sims on his belief that Sims was intoxicated.
On August 18, 2009, the State charged Sims with class A misdemeanor operating while intoxicated and class C misdemeanor operating while intoxicated. The State later amended the charges to include a habitual substance offender allegation. On October 14, 2010, a jury found Sims guilty of class A misdemeanor operating while intoxicated and class C misdemeanor operating while intoxicated. Sims waived a jury trial on the habitual substance offender charge and admitted to his status as a habitual offender.
During the sentencing hearing, the trial court merged the two convictions.
Sims contends that the evidence was insufficient to sustain his conviction of operating while intoxicated as a class A misdemeanor. Specifically, Sims argues that the State failed to produce evidence he endangered himself or someone else.
Our standard of review when considering a challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence is well settled. We do not assess witness credibility or reweigh the evidence. Drane v. State, 867 N.E.2d 144 (Ind. 2007). We consider only the evidence supporting the judgment and reasonable inferences that can be drawn from such evidence. Henley v. State, 881 N.E.2d 639 (Ind. 2008). We affirm the conviction unless "no reasonable fact-finder could find the elements of the crime proven beyond a reasonable doubt." Drane v. State, 867 N.E.2d at 146.
To convict Sims of operating a motor vehicle while intoxicated as a class A misdemeanor, the State was required to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Sims "operate[d] a vehicle while intoxicated . . . in a manner that endanger[ed] a person." I.C. § 9-30-5-2(b). The element of endangerment can be established by evidence showing that in the defendant's condition or manner of operation he or she could have endangered any person, including the public, the police, or the defendant. Outlaw v. State, 918 N.E.2d 379 (Ind. Ct. App. 2009).
In this case, the State introduced evidence through the testimony of Officer Ray that there were other vehicles and pedestrians in the area where Sims was driving as he crossed the center line. We conclude that Officer Ray's testimony regarding Sims's unlawful and unsafe driving is sufficient to prove that Sims was operating a vehicle in a manner that endangered the public and himself.
Judgment affirmed. DARDEN, J., and VAIDIK, J., concur.