James F. Gibbons, Jr. v. State of Indiana (mem. dec.) ( 2017 )

MEMORANDUM DECISION
Pursuant to Ind. Appellate Rule 65(D),
this Memorandum Decision shall not be FILED
regarded as precedent or cited before any Sep 08 2017, 7:19 am
court except for the purpose of establishing CLERK
the defense of res judicata, collateral Indiana Supreme Court
Court of Appeals
and Tax Court
estoppel, or the law of the case.
ATTORNEY FOR APPELLANT ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE
Steven Knecht Curtis T. Hill, Jr.
Vonderheide & Knecht, P.C. Attorney General
Lafayette, Indiana
Lyubov Gore
Deputy Attorney General
Indianapolis, Indiana
IN THE
COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA
James F. Gibbons, Jr., September 8, 2017
Appellant-Defendant, Court of Appeals Case No.
08A05-1703-CR-546
v. Appeal from the Carroll Circuit
Court
State of Indiana, The Honorable Benjamin A.
Appellee-Plaintiff Diener, Judge
Trial Court Cause No.
08C01-1506-F5-7
Crone, Judge.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 08A05-1703-CR-546 |September 8, 2017 Page 1 of 5
Case Summary
[1] James F. Gibbons, Jr., appeals his conviction, following a jury trial, for level 5
felony operating a vehicle while privileges are forfeited for life. He contends
that the State presented insufficient evidence to support his conviction. Finding
the evidence sufficient, we affirm.
Facts and Procedural History
[2] On June 17, 2015, Ross Egelhoff witnessed Gibbons, someone he has known
for almost thirty years, operate a vehicle. Specifically, around noon that day,
Egelhoff was driving to lunch when he passed Gibbons driving his black Jeep
Cherokee in the opposite direction. The two men pulled their vehicles over and
spoke for about five minutes. No other person was in Gibbons’s vehicle. Then,
at 2:00 p.m., Gibbons drove to Ross’s home to visit. Egelhoff observed
Gibbons drive up his driveway in the Jeep. Again, no other person was in the
vehicle. It is undisputed that on that date, Gibbon’s driving privileges had been
forfeited for life.
[3] Gibbons stayed at Egelhoff’s for several hours and was drinking alcohol.
Egelhoff began feeling uncomfortable because he thought the situation was
getting “out of control” and that Gibbons had “had enough to drink.” Tr. Vol.
2 at 23, 28. Egelhoff decided to call the police. Carroll County Sheriff’s Office
Deputy Spencer Kingery responded to the dispatch regarding “an unwanted
guest” at Egelhoff’s residence. Id. at 9. The dispatch operator advised Deputy
Kingery that the subject was a habitual traffic violator and possibly intoxicated.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 08A05-1703-CR-546 |September 8, 2017 Page 2 of 5
When Deputy Kingery arrived, Gibbons was inside his Jeep in Egelhoff’s
driveway. Deputy Kingery observed that Gibbons was “either passed out or
asleep in the driver’s seat kind of leaning over toward the passenger seat.” Id. at
12. Deputy Kingery spoke to Egelhoff and learned that Gibbons was “not
wanted [on Egelhoff’s property] at that time.” Id. Deputy Kingery then
attempted to talk to Gibbons and knocked on the vehicle door several times.
The deputy eventually had to reach in the vehicle and shake Gibbons by the
shoulder in an attempt to rouse him. Gibbons responded with “a bunch of
mumbling” and was “kind of incoherent.” Id. at 13. Deputy Kingery observed
that the keys were in the Jeep’s ignition, but the vehicle was not running. After
doing a check on the expired license plate on the Jeep, and speaking further to
Egelhoff about the events of the day, Deputy Kingery arrested Gibbons.
[4] The State charged Gibbons with level 5 felony operating a vehicle while
privileges are forfeited for life. Following trial, the jury found Gibbons guilty as
charged. The trial court imposed a four-year sentence. This appeal ensued.
Discussion and Decision
[5] Gibbons 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
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 08A05-1703-CR-546 |September 8, 2017 Page 3 of 5
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 prove that Gibbons committed level 5 felony operating a vehicle while
privileges are suspended for life, the State was required to prove that Gibbons
(1) operated a motor vehicle; (2) while his driving privileges were forfeited for
life. See Ind. Code § 9-30-10-17; Brock v. State, 955 N.E.2d 195, 204 (Ind. 2011),
cert. denied (2012). The parties here agreed at trial that on June 17, 2015,
Gibbons’s driving privileges had been forfeited for life. State’s Ex. 1. Thus, the
only issue was whether Gibbons operated a motor vehicle on that date.
[7] Egelhoff testified unequivocally that he observed Gibbons operate a motor
vehicle twice on June 17, 2015. He observed Gibbons driving once around
noon, and again at 2:00 p.m. This testimony alone was sufficient to support the
jury’s verdict. See Sallee v. State, 51 N.E.3d 130, 135 (Ind. 2016) (conviction can
be sustained on the testimony of a single witness, even where the evidence is
uncorroborated). Moreover, while we need not go into detail, the State
presented additional evidence which supported a reasonable inference that
Gibbons operated a motor vehicle on June 17, 2015. See Tr. Vol. 2 at 67-72.
Gibbons simply points to his own self-serving testimony and requests that we
reweigh the evidence and reassess witness credibility in his favor. However,
this is not a task within our prerogative on appeal. The State presented
sufficient evidence to support Gibbons’s conviction for level 5 felony operating
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 08A05-1703-CR-546 |September 8, 2017 Page 4 of 5
a motor vehicle while privileges are forfeited for life. Therefore, we affirm the
conviction.
[8] Affirmed.
Vaidik, C.J., and Mathias, J., concur.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 08A05-1703-CR-546 |September 8, 2017 Page 5 of 5