Darrell Lee Moore v. State of Indiana (mem. dec.) ( 2018 )

MEMORANDUM DECISION
Pursuant to Ind. Appellate Rule 65(D),
this Memorandum Decision shall not be
regarded as precedent or cited before any FILED
court except for the purpose of establishing Jun 06 2018, 9:23 am
the defense of res judicata, collateral CLERK
estoppel, or the law of the case. Indiana Supreme Court
Court of Appeals
and Tax Court
ATTORNEY FOR APPELLANT ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE
Matthew M. Kubacki Curtis T. Hill, Jr.
Indianapolis, Indiana Attorney General of Indiana
Ellen H. Meilaender
Supervising Deputy Attorney
General
Indianapolis, Indiana
IN THE
COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA
Darrell Lee Moore, June 6, 2018
Appellant-Defendant, Court of Appeals Case No.
18A-CR-28
v. Appeal from the Marion Superior
Court
State of Indiana, The Honorable Amy Jones, Judge
Appellee-Plaintiff. The Honorable David Hooper,
Magistrate
Trial Court Cause No.
49G08-1709-CM-33108
Bradford, Judge.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 18A-CR-28 | June 6, 2018 Page 1 of 5
Case Summary
[1] Darrell Lee Moore appeals his conviction for Class A misdemeanor operating a
vehicle while intoxicated in a manner that endangers another. While Moore
does not dispute that he was intoxicated at the time of his arrest, he argues that
the State failed to prove that he operated his vehicle in a manner that
endangered another. We affirm.
Facts and Procedural History
[2] At approximately 8:00 p.m. on September 4, 2017, Indianapolis Metropolitan
Police Officer Don Weilhamer, Jr. observed Moore’s vehicle “run [a] red light”
near 900 East Washington Street. Tr. Vol. II, p. 11. In running the light,
Moore’s vehicle disregarded a “no turn on red” sign and “was moving rather
quickly.” Tr. Vol. II, p. 11. Officer Weilhamer further observed that Moore’s
vehicle “didn’t slow down very much at all” before turning eastbound onto
Washington Street. Tr. Vol. II, p. 11. While Moore did not pull out in front of
any vehicles traveling in the eastbound lanes, there were other vehicles going
through the intersection at the time traveling in the westbound lanes. Officer
Weilhamer estimated that Moore was driving above the posted speed limit as it
took him a couple of blocks to catch up to Moore once he initiated a traffic
stop.
[3] Upon approaching Moore’s vehicle, Officer Weilhamer smelled “an odor of an
alcoholic beverage coming from the vehicle.” Tr. Vol. II, p. 13. He observed
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 18A-CR-28 | June 6, 2018 Page 2 of 5
that Moore had slow speech and glassy, bloodshot eyes. Moore also had
difficulty finding and retrieving both his identification from his wallet and the
vehicle registration. Once Moore exited the vehicle, Officer Weilhamer “could
smell [the] odor of an alcoholic beverage on [Moore’s] breath.” Tr. Vol. II, p.
15. Moore failed three field sobriety tests: the horizontal gaze nystagmus test,
the walk and turn test, and the one leg stand test. Moore admitted that he had
been drinking and consented to a breath test, the results of which revealed
Moore’s blood alcohol concentration (“BAC”) to be .083. A search of Bureau
of Motor Vehicles records also showed that Moore had never received a valid
driver’s license and that his driving privileges were suspended.
[4] On September 5, 2017, the State charged Moore with Class A misdemeanor
operating while intoxicated, Class C misdemeanor operating with a BAC of .08
or more, Class A misdemeanor operating never having received a license, and
Class A infraction driving while suspended. Moore was found guilty of each of
the criminal charges and the infraction following a bench trial and was
sentenced to an aggregate suspended 365-day sentence.
Discussion and Decision
[5] On appeal, Moore challenges the sufficiency of the evidence to sustain his
conviction for Class A misdemeanor operating while intoxicated endangering
another person.
Our standard of review with regard to sufficiency claims is well
settled. In reviewing a sufficiency of the evidence claim, this
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 18A-CR-28 | June 6, 2018 Page 3 of 5
court does not reweigh the evidence or judge the credibility of the
witnesses. We will consider only the evidence most favorable to
the verdict and the reasonable inferences drawn therefrom and
will affirm if the evidence and those inferences constitute
substantial evidence of probative value to support the judgment.
A conviction may be based upon circumstantial evidence alone.
Reversal is appropriate only when reasonable persons would not
be able to form inferences as to each material element of the
offense.
Staley v. State, 895 N.E.2d 1245, 1250 (Ind. Ct. App. 2008) (internal citations
omitted).
[6] In challenging his conviction, Moore does not dispute that he was intoxicated
at the time of his arrest, but argues that the State failed to prove the element of
endangerment. “To prove endangerment, the State must prove that the
defendant was operating the vehicle in a condition or manner that could have
endangered any person, including the public, the police, or the defendant.”
Staten v. State, 946 N.E.2d 80, 84 (Ind. Ct. App. 2011) (citation omitted,
emphasis in original).
[T]he endangerment clause does not require that the State prove
a person other that the defendant was actually in the path of the
defendant’s vehicle or in the same area in order to obtain a
conviction. An officer does not have to wait until the defendant
crosses the centerline and adds another victim to the statistics of
those who have died in drunk driving accidents. Thus, it is
sufficient that the defendant’s condition renders driving unsafe.
Staley, 895 N.E.2d at 1251 (citations omitted).
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 18A-CR-28 | June 6, 2018 Page 4 of 5
[7] The facts of this case indicate that on the evening in question, Moore operated
his vehicle in an unsafe manner. Specifically Moore disregarded a “no turn on
red” sign and ran a red light. Tr. Vol. II, p. 11. In addition, Moore “didn’t
slow down very much at all” before turning onto Washington Street. Tr. Vol.
II, p. 11. While Moore did not pull out in front of any vehicles traveling in the
eastbound lanes of Washington Street, there were other vehicles going through
the intersection at the time traveling in the westbound lanes. Given that Moore
disregarded a no turn on red sign and turned into the eastbound lanes “rather
quickly” it is not unreasonable to conclude that he could have created a
dangerous situation. Tr. Vol. II, p. 11. These facts are sufficient to prove
endangerment. See Staten, 946 N.E.2d at 84.
[8] The judgment of the trial court is affirmed.
Baker, J., and Kirsch, J., concur.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 18A-CR-28 | June 6, 2018 Page 5 of 5