Alan Ponce-Gomez v. State of Indiana (mem. dec.)

MEMO RANDUM DECISION
FILED
Pursuant to Ind. Appellate Rule 65(D), this
Mar 09 2017, 7:15 am
Memorandum Decision shall not be regarded as
precedent or cited before any court except for the CLERK
Indiana Supreme Court
purpose of establishing the defense of res judicata, Court of Appeals
and Tax Court
collateral estoppel, or the law of the case.
ATTORNEY FOR APPELLANT ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE
Jennifer L. Koethe Curtis T. Hill, Jr.
LaPorte, Indiana Attorney General of Indiana
Ellen H. Meilaender
Deputy Attorney General
Indianapolis, Indiana
IN THE
COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA
Alan Ponce-Gomez, March 9, 2017
Appellant-Defendant, Court of Appeals Case No.
46A05-1606-CR-1285
v. Appeal from the LaPorte Superior
Court.
The Honorable Michael S.
State of Indiana, Bergerson, Judge.
Appellee-Plaintiff. Cause No. 46D01-1511-F2-953
Barteau, Senior Judge
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 46A05-1606-CR-1285 | March 9, 2017 Page 1 of 8
Statement of the Case
[1] Alan Ponce-Gomez appeals from his convictions of two counts of Level 5
1
battery, contending the evidence is insufficient. We affirm.
Facts and Procedural History
[2] On November 10, 2015, at around 6:45 a.m., Terri Tomassi stepped outside her
house where she lived with her friend, Deb, to smoke a cigarette and start up
her truck. She and Deb had plans to leave their house on 713 York St. in
Michigan City to take Tomassi’s sister to a medical appointment. Once
outside, Tomassi observed a Hispanic man, later identified as Ponce-Gomez, a
person she had never seen before, standing beside his truck, which was parked
in her driveway, talking on his cell phone. She told him to get off of her
property because she needed to leave and his vehicle was blocking her exit.
[3] Ponce-Gomez ignored Tomassi and kept talking in Spanish to someone on his
cell phone. Tomassi persisted, instructing Ponce-Gomez to get off her property
because she needed to leave. After continuing to ignore her repeated requests
to leave, Ponce-Gomez then told her, in English, to shut up. Tomassi believed
there was something strange about the man’s behavior, surmising that he was
possibly high on illegal drugs. During the encounter, he focused on her
property not on her.
1
Ind. Code § 35-42-2-1(f)(5)(A) (2014).
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 46A05-1606-CR-1285 | March 9, 2017 Page 2 of 8
[4] After going inside and discussing the situation with Deb, Tomassi decided to
call the police. She went outside again, holding up her phone and saying
“policia” multiple times to let Ponce-Gomez know what she was doing. Tr. p.
58. Undeterred, Ponce-Gomez remained standing by his vehicle in her
driveway. Against the 911 operator’s advice, Tomassi went to the rear of
Ponce-Gomez’s green Ford Escalade, described the vehicle to her, and provided
the license plate number.
[5] As Tomassi was talking to the operator, Ponce-Gomez got into his vehicle and
started backing it up toward her. He then stopped and exited his vehicle on the
passenger’s side. A school bus had approached behind the two. The bus driver
could not get around Tomassi or Ponce-Gomez. Ponce-Gomez stopped talking
on his cell phone, looked toward the school bus, got into his vehicle and left.
[6] Tomassi went into her house thinking that the incident was over. She then
called her sister to let her know that they were going to have to miss her
medical appointment. The operator had told Tomassi that police were on the
way to the scene and that she should remain there until officers arrived.
[7] While she was waiting inside her kitchen for law enforcement, Tomassi
observed Ponce-Gomez’s vehicle. She went outside to investigate, but did not
see him. Deb came outside to let her know that Ponce-Gomez was inside their
shed and that she had noticed the lock to the shed was broken.
[8] Shortly thereafter, Officers Bruce Krause and Larry Young, Jr., of the Michigan
City Police Department arrived in uniform at the scene. Tomassi explained to
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 46A05-1606-CR-1285 | March 9, 2017 Page 3 of 8
the officers what had happened and told them that she did not know Ponce-
Gomez, she did not give him permission to be in her shed, and she wanted him
removed from her property.
[9] Officer Krause proceeded to the storage shed where he saw Ponce-Gomez
pushing a lawnmower out of the shed while holding a gas can. Officer Krause
then asked Ponce-Gomez what he was doing and requested to see
identification. Ponce-Gomez mumbled something in Spanish. After several
requests for identification, each without a response, Officer Krause motioned
for him to exit the shed. Ponce-Gomez complied, but told the officer that he
had “No. I.D.”. Id. at 138. Officer Krause then asked him to put his hands on
the fence, and placed his hand on Ponce-Gomez’s shoulder to motion him
toward the fence. The officer did so, given the seeming communication issues
between the two.
[10] Ponce-Gomez then grabbed Officer Krause’s arm and wrist, resulting in a
struggle. Ponce-Gomez retreated into the shed pulling Officer Krause with
him. Officer Young ended up inside the shed as well. Once there, Ponce-
Gomez told the officers in English, “You don’t want to do this.” Id. at 106.
[11] He continued to struggle with both officers by grabbing, pushing, pulling, and
tugging them. He used his body weight to force them into objects, throw them
around the shed, and cause them to fall to the ground. He lowered his center of
gravity, pushing himself against both officers and using his shoulders to do so.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 46A05-1606-CR-1285 | March 9, 2017 Page 4 of 8
He grabbed Officer Young’s vest, pulling down on it, grabbed his wrist and
hands, and forced the officer to the ground.
[12] Although the officers repeatedly asked Ponce-Gomez to put his hands behind
his back and to stop resisting arrest, he never complied. According to the
officers, Ponce-Gomez physically fought with the officers for around ten
minutes before they were able to handcuff him, after tasing him multiple times
and other officers arrived to offer assistance.
[13] As a result of the altercation, Officer Young suffered a ripped pectoral muscle
and aggravated a prior neck injury, causing him extreme pain. Officer Krause
suffered cuts, bruises, and bleeding. The officers arrested Ponce-Gomez for
resisting arrest.
[14] The State charged Ponce-Gomez with one count of Level 2 felony burglary
resulting in serious bodily injury, one count of Level 3 felony burglary resulting
in serious bodily injury, and three counts of Level 5 felony battery against a
2
public safety officer. Ponce-Gomez appeals, challenging his convictions of
Level 5 felony battery against Officers Krause and Young.
2
The jury found Ponce-Gomez not guilty of the injuries sustained by the third officer.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 46A05-1606-CR-1285 | March 9, 2017 Page 5 of 8
Discussion and Decision
[15] Ponce-Gomez contends that the evidence is insufficient to sustain his
convictions because the officers were injured while he resisted law enforcement,
a crime for which he was arrested, but was not charged or convicted.
[16] Although Ponce-Gomez was arrested for resisting arrest, he was charged with
and convicted of two counts of battery against a law enforcement officer as a
Level 5 felony. “The prosecutor has broad discretion in determining what
crimes to prosecute and what penalties to seek.” Boss v. State, 702 N.E.2d 782
(Ind. Ct. App. 1998). Here, the State elected to proceed with the battery
charges. Therefore, we will review Ponce-Gomez’s convictions for battery
against a law enforcement officer for the sufficiency of the evidence.
[17] In order to convict Ponce-Gomez of battery against Officers Krause and Young,
the State was required to establish beyond a reasonable doubt that he
knowingly or intentionally touched, in a rude, insolent, or angry manner, a
public safety official, while the official was engaged in the official’s official
duties. Ind. Code § 35-42-2-1(f)(5)(A).
[18] Ponce-Gomez argues that there is insufficient evidence that he knowingly or
intentionally battered the officers. When we review a claim challenging the
sufficiency of the evidence we neither reweigh the evidence nor assess the
credibility of the witnesses. Treadway v. State, 924 N.E.2d 621, 639 (Ind. 2010).
Instead, we consider only the evidence and reasonable inferences drawn
therefrom that support the verdict. Id. We will affirm the conviction if there is
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 46A05-1606-CR-1285 | March 9, 2017 Page 6 of 8
probative evidence from which a reasonable jury could have found the
defendant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. Id.
[19] There is no dispute that the officers were acting in their official capacity as
officers of the Michigan City Police Department, responding to Tomassi’s call
for assistance. Further, there is no dispute that the officers suffered injuries
from the early morning incident with Ponce-Gomez. Nonetheless, he argues
that there is insufficient evidence to support his convictions.
[20] The issue here is whether Ponce-Gomez knowingly or intentionally committed
the offenses. “Intent, being a mental state, can only be established by
considering the behavior of the relevant actor, the surrounding circumstances,
and the reasonable inferences to be drawn from them.” Davis v. State, 791
N.E.2d 266, 270 (Ind. Ct. App. 2003), trans. denied. Further, “a person engages
in conduct ‘intentionally’ if, when he engages in the conduct, it is his conscious
objective to do so.” Ind. Code § 35-41-2-2(a) (1977). “A person engages in
conduct ‘knowingly’ if, when he engages in the conduct, he is aware of a high
probability that he is doing so.” Ind. Code § 35-41-2-2(b) (1977).
[21] The record reflects that Ponce-Gomez initiated the struggle with Officer Krause
when he grabbed the officer’s wrist and forearm and pulled him back into the
shed. In addition to that evidence, Ponce-Gomez stated to the officers, “You
don’t want to do this.” Tr. p. 106. He then continued the skirmish by grabbing
and pushing, using his body weight to force the officers into objects, and
throwing the officers around the shed. He used his shoulders to force himself
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 46A05-1606-CR-1285 | March 9, 2017 Page 7 of 8
against the officers, causing both officers to fall to the ground, and he wrestled
with them. This evidence is sufficient to support the convictions.
Conclusion
[22] Based on the foregoing, we affirm the trial court’s decision.
[23] Affirmed.
Bradford, J., and Altice, J., concur.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 46A05-1606-CR-1285 | March 9, 2017 Page 8 of 8