Anthony Lee Leturgez v. State of Indiana ( 2012 )


Menu:
  • Pursuant to Ind.Appellate Rule 65(D),
    FILED
    this Memorandum Decision shall not be
    regarded as precedent or cited before
    any court except for the purpose of                        Jul 20 2012, 9:06 am
    establishing the defense of res judicata,
    collateral estoppel, or the law of the
    CLERK
    case.                                                            of the supreme court,
    court of appeals and
    tax court
    ATTORNEY FOR APPELLANT:                          ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE:
    STEVEN KNECHT                                    GREGORY F. ZOELLER
    Vonderheide & Knecht, P.C.                       Attorney General of Indiana
    Lafayette, Indiana
    ERIC P. BABBS
    Deputy Attorney General
    Indianapolis, Indiana
    IN THE
    COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA
    ANTHONY LEE LETURGEZ,                            )
    )
    Appellant-Defendant,                      )
    )
    vs.                                )      No. 79A02-1112-CR-1105
    )
    STATE OF INDIANA,                                )
    )
    Appellee-Plaintiff.                       )
    APPEAL FROM THE TIPPECANOE SUPERIOR COURT
    The Honorable Les A. Meade, Judge
    Cause No. 79D05-1106-CM-580
    July 20, 2012
    MEMORANDUM DECISION - NOT FOR PUBLICATION
    MAY, Judge
    Anthony L. Leturgez appeals his conviction of battery, a Class B misdemeanor.1
    Leturgez argues there was insufficient evidence to support his conviction. We affirm.
    FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY
    On June 29, 2011, during her lunch break, Mary Becklehymer took a walk on the
    Wabash Heritage Trail in West Lafayette, Indiana. As Becklehymer walked along the
    trail, she encountered Leturgez for the first time. She said “hello” and continued to walk
    the opposite direction down the trail. (Tr. at 8.) Becklehymer walked for a while and,
    after turning around to head back to work, she encountered Leturgez again. Leturgez
    asked Becklehymer if she had a couple of minutes and she responded that she did not
    because she had to return to work. Leturgez again asked her if she had a minute.
    Becklehymer repeated that she did not have any time and turned to walk away. Leturgez
    grabbed her from behind, placing his hands on her waist and upper legs, which were
    covered by her sweater. Becklehymer ran away and called police.
    The State charged Leturgez with one count of Class B misdemeanor battery. The
    trial court conducted a bench trial on October 20, 2011, and found Leturgez guilty.
    Leturgez was sentenced to 180 days in jail and was fined $100, all of which was
    suspended provided he complete one year of unsupervised probation.
    DISCUSSION AND DECISION
    When reviewing sufficiency of evidence, we neither reweigh the evidence nor
    judge the credibility of the witnesses, and we respect the factfinder’s “exclusive province
    1
    Ind. Code 35-42-3-1(a).
    2
    to weigh conflicting evidence.” Alkhalidi v. State, 
    753 N.E.2d 635
    , 627 (Ind. 2001). We
    “consider only the probative evidence and reasonable inferences supporting the verdict.”
    McHenry v. State, 
    820 N.E.2d 124
    , 126 (Ind. 2005).         We affirm “if the probative
    evidence and reasonable inferences drawn from the evidence could have allowed a
    reasonable trier of fact to find the defendant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.” Tobar v.
    State, 
    740 N.E.2d 109
    , 112 (Ind. 2000).
    The State had to prove Leturgez knowingly or intentionally touched Becklemeyer
    in a rude, insolent, or angry manner. Ind. Code §35-42-2-1(a). We affirm a conviction of
    battery so long as there is evidence of touching, however slight. Mishler v. State, 
    660 N.E.2d 343
    , 348 (Ind. Ct. App. 1996).       A person can commit battery by touching
    another’s apparel. Impson v. State, 
    721 N.E.2d 1275
    , 1285 (Ind. Ct. App. 2000).
    Leturgez claims the State’s evidence was insufficient because Beckelhymer was
    the only witness. However, a conviction may be sustained based on the uncorroborated
    testimony of the victim. Ferrell v. State, 
    565 N.E.2d 1070
    , 1072-73 (Ind. 1991). At the
    end of the trial, the judge explicitly stated, “I find Beckelhymer more credible.” (Tr. at
    32.) Based on her testimony that Leturgez grabbed her waist and upper legs, it was
    reasonable for the trial court to find beyond a reasonable doubt that Leturgez committed
    battery. Therefore, we affirm.
    Affirmed.
    FRIEDLANDER, J., and BARNES, J., concur.
    3
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 79A02-1112-CR-1105

Filed Date: 7/20/2012

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 4/18/2021