David G. Pike v. State of Indiana (mem. dec.)

MEMORANDUM DECISION
Pursuant to Ind. Appellate Rule 65(D), FILED
this Memorandum Decision shall not be Jul 30 2018, 11:03 am
regarded as precedent or cited before any
CLERK
court except for the purpose of establishing Indiana Supreme Court
Court of Appeals
the defense of res judicata, collateral and Tax Court
estoppel, or the law of the case.
ATTORNEY FOR APPELLANT ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE
Andrew B. Arnett Curtis T. Hill, Jr.
Indianapolis, Indiana Attorney General of Indiana
Michael Gene Worden
Deputy Attorney General
Indianapolis, Indiana
IN THE
COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA
David G. Pike, July 30, 2018
Appellant-Defendant, Court of Appeals Case No.
18A-CR-205
v. Appeal from the Shelby Superior
Court
State of Indiana, The Honorable R. Kent Apsley,
Appellee-Plaintiff. Judge
Trial Court Cause No.
73D01-1607-F6-267
Pyle, Judge.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 18A-CR-205 | July 30, 2018 Page 1 of 5
Statement of the Case
[1] Davis G. Pike (“Pike”) appeals his conviction following a bench trial of Level 6
felony operating a vehicle with a schedule I or II controlled substance in the
body causing serious bodily injury.1 He argues that there is insufficient
evidence to support his conviction. Concluding that the evidence is sufficient,
we affirm Pike’s conviction.
[2] We affirm.
Issue
Whether there is sufficient evidence to support Pike’s conviction
for Level 6 felony operating a vehicle with a schedule I or II
controlled substance in the body causing serious bodily injury. 2
Facts
[3] The facts most favorable to the verdict reveal that in May 2015, Pike was
driving a vehicle with his nine-months-pregnant girlfriend, Samara Bedell
(“Bedell”), as a passenger in the back seat. Pike turned left into oncoming
traffic while his ability to see the oncoming traffic was obscured by a truck, and
his vehicle was struck by an oncoming van. A seriously injured Bedell was
1
IND. CODE § 9-30-5-4.
2
Pike also argues that there is insufficient evidence to support his conviction of Level 6 felony operating a
vehicle while intoxicated. However, the sentencing order provides that the trial court “enter[ed] no judgment
as to Count I, Operating a Vehicle While Intoxicated Causing Serious Bodily Injury, a Level 6 Felony, a
factually included offense under Count II.” (App. Vol. 2 at 35). Because Pike was not convicted of
operating a vehicle while intoxicated, there is no such conviction to appeal.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 18A-CR-205 | July 30, 2018 Page 2 of 5
lifelined to a severe trauma facility where she was diagnosed with a ruptured
uterus, and her baby died. At the time of the crash, Pike had THC active
metabolites in his blood.
[4] The trial court convicted Pike of Level 6 felony operating a vehicle with a
schedule I or II controlled substance in his body causing serious bodily injury.
Pike now appeals.
Decision
[5] Pike argues that there is insufficient evidence to support his conviction for Level
6 felony operating a vehicle with a schedule I or II controlled substance causing
serious bodily injury. Our standard of review for sufficiency of the evidence
claims is well settled. We consider only the probative evidence and reasonable
inferences supporting the verdict. Drane v. State, 867 N.E.2d 144, 146 (Ind.
2007). We do not reweigh the evidence or judge witness credibility. Id. We
will affirm the conviction unless no reasonable fact finder could find the
elements of the crime proven beyond a reasonable doubt. Id. The evidence is
sufficient if an inference may be reasonably drawn from it to support the
verdict. Id. at 147.
[6] In order to convict Pike of Level 6 felony operating a vehicle with a schedule I
or II controlled substance in his body causing serious bodily injury, the State
had the burden to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Pike caused serious
bodily injury to Bedell while operating a vehicle with a schedule I or II
controlled substance or metabolite in his body. See I.C. § 9-30-5-4. Pike’s sole
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 18A-CR-205 | July 30, 2018 Page 3 of 5
argument is that “his driving was not the substantial cause of [Bedell’s] injury.”
(Pike’s Br. 11).
[7] Pike has waived appellate review of this argument because his brief, conclusory
argument is supported neither by citation to authority nor cogent argument. See
Smith v. State, 822 N.E.2d 193, 202-03 (Ind. Ct. App. 2005) (“Generally, a party
waives any issue raised on appeal where the party fails to develop a cogent
argument or provide adequate citation to authority and portions of the
record.”), trans. denied.
[8] Waiver notwithstanding, the Indiana Supreme Court has explained that “the
State must prove the defendant’s conduct was a proximate cause of the victim’s
injury or death.” Abney v. State, 766 N.E.2d 1175, 1178 (Ind. 2002). In other
words, the State must prove that the victim’s injury was a foreseeable result of
the defendant’s conduct. Hopson v. State, 95 N.E.3d 531, 533 (Ind. Ct. App.
2018).
[9] Here, it is foreseeable that a passenger will suffer serious bodily injury where
the driver (1) makes a left turn in front of oncoming traffic when his view is
obstructed, and (2) has active THC metabolites in his blood. This evidence is
sufficient to support Pike’s conviction for Level 6 felony operating a vehicle
with a schedule I or II controlled substance in his body causing serious bodily
injury.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 18A-CR-205 | July 30, 2018 Page 4 of 5
[10] Affirmed.
Vaidik, C.J., and Barnes, Sr.J., concur.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 18A-CR-205 | July 30, 2018 Page 5 of 5