Wayne E. Mitchell v. State of Indiana (mem. dec.) ( 2016 )

MEMORANDUM DECISION
FILED
Pursuant to Ind. Appellate Rule 65(D), May 13 2016, 8:17 am
this Memorandum Decision shall not be CLERK
regarded as precedent or cited before any Indiana Supreme Court
Court of Appeals
court except for the purpose of establishing and Tax Court
the defense of res judicata, collateral
estoppel, or the law of the case.
ATTORNEY FOR APPELLANT ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE
Andrew B. Arnett Gregory F. Zoeller
Indianapolis, Indiana Attorney General of Indiana
Paula J. Beller
Deputy Attorney General
Indianapolis, Indiana
IN THE
COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA
Wayne E. Mitchell, May 13, 2016
Appellant-Defendant, Court of Appeals Case No.
73A01-1510-CR-1619
v. Appeal from the Shelby Circuit
Court
State of Indiana, The Honorable Charles D.
Appellee-Plaintiff O’Connor, Judge
Trial Court Cause No.
73C01-1504-F5-28
Baker, Judge.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 73A01-1510-CR-1619 | May 13, 2016 Page 1 of 5
[1] Wayne Mitchell appeals his conviction for Criminal Confinement,1 a Level 5
felony, arguing that there is insufficient evidence to support it. Finding the
evidence sufficient, we affirm.
Facts
[2] On April 12, 2015, Mitchell and Melissa Degen were traveling in a car that
Mitchell had recently stolen. While stopped at a truck stop in Whiteland, they
began to argue. They continued to argue in the car as they drove away;
Mitchell was driving and Degen was in the front passenger seat. The argument
then became physical as Mitchell slapped Degen’s face, pulled her hair, and
choked her.
[3] Degen tried to exit the vehicle but Mitchell pulled her back inside by her hair.
Degen asked Mitchell several times to let her out of the car but Mitchell used
the child-proof lock to prevent her from rolling down the window or opening
the door. Degen then used her phone to call 911. The dispatcher was able to
track Degen’s phone via GPS and officers soon found Mitchell’s car driving
through a bean field at a high rate of speed. Mitchell eventually came to a stop
and was arrested.
[4] On April 13, 2015, the State charged Mitchell with criminal confinement,
strangulation, domestic battery, interference with reporting of a crime, criminal
1
Ind. Code § 35-42-3-3.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 73A01-1510-CR-1619 | May 13, 2016 Page 2 of 5
trespass, driving while suspended, and criminal mischief. The State later added
charges of auto theft and invasion of privacy, and also alleged that Mitchell was
an habitual offender.
[5] Prior to trial, Mitchell pleaded guilty to invasion of privacy and the State
dismissed the driving while suspended charge. A jury trial was held on July 27
and 28, 2015. Following the State’s case in chief, Mitchell moved for a directed
verdict on all counts. The trial court granted Mitchell’s motion as to the
criminal trespass and criminal mischief counts. The jury then found Mitchell
guilty of criminal confinement, domestic battery, and auto theft; and not guilty
of strangulation and interference with the reporting of a crime. On September
17, 2015, the trial court sentenced Mitchell to five years and six months for
criminal confinement, one year for domestic battery, two years and nine
months for auto theft, and one year for invasion of privacy. Mitchell’s sentence
was enhanced by three years after the trial court found him to be an habitual
offender. All sentences were ordered to be served concurrently. Mitchell now
appeals his conviction for criminal confinement.
Discussion and Decision
[6] Mitchell argues that the State presented insufficient evidence to support his
conviction for criminal confinement. When a defendant challenges the
sufficiency of the evidence supporting a conviction, this Court does not reweigh
the evidence or judge the credibility of the witnesses. McHenry v. State, 820
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 73A01-1510-CR-1619 | May 13, 2016 Page 3 of 5
N.E.2d 124, 126 (Ind. 2005). We consider only the probative evidence and the
reasonable inferences drawn therefrom that support the verdict. Id.
[7] Indiana Code section 35-42-3-3 provides that “[a] person who knowingly or
intentionally confines another person without the other person’s consent
commits criminal confinement.” To “confine” means to “substantially interfere
with the liberty of a person.” I.C. § 35-42-3-1. The offense is raised to a Level 5
felony if “it is committed by using a vehicle.” I.C. § 35-42-3-3(b)(1)(B).
[8] Both this Court and our Supreme Court have found on numerous occasions
that the evidence supported a criminal confinement conviction under
circumstances similar to this case. See, e.g., Daniels v. State, 274 Ind. 29, 35-36,
408 N.E.2d 1244, 1248 (Ind. 1980) (evidence supported criminal confinement
conviction where defendant drove around with victim without her consent);
Stephens v. State, 10 N.E.3d 599, 604 (Ind. Ct. App. 2014) (evidence supported
criminal confinement conviction where defendant drove around with victim
and ignored her repeated pleas to be let out of the car); McCullough v. State, 888
N.E.2d 1272 (Ind. Ct. App. 2008) (same), vacated in part on other grounds, 900
N.E.2d 745 (Ind. 2009). Thus, it is clear that evidence that a defendant has
knowingly held a victim in a vehicle despite the victim’s requests to be let out
will support a criminal confinement conviction.
[9] Mitchell only argues that “[t]here was [] nothing on the record which indicated
it was feasible [to stop] or there was a safe place to let Degen out of the car.”
Appellant’s Br. p. 9. We disagree. The record indicates that Mitchell was
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 73A01-1510-CR-1619 | May 13, 2016 Page 4 of 5
driving on roads and through a bean field. There is nothing inherent in the
nature of a road or a bean field that prevents a car from stopping, and Mitchell
has not argued that there were any special circumstances here. From this
evidence, a reasonable jury could infer that Mitchell could have stopped at any
point following Degen’s request that he do so. The vehicle was clearly capable
of stopping, as Mitchell stopped when the officers caught up with him.
Accordingly, the evidence was sufficient to support Mitchell’s conviction for
criminal confinement.
[10] The judgment of the trial court is affirmed.
May, J., and Brown, J., concur.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 73A01-1510-CR-1619 | May 13, 2016 Page 5 of 5