William Ryan v. State of Indiana (mem. dec.)

MEMORANDUM DECISION FILED
Mar 20 2017, 10:12 am
Pursuant to Ind. Appellate Rule 65(D),
this Memorandum Decision shall not be CLERK
Indiana Supreme Court
regarded as precedent or cited before any Court of Appeals
and Tax Court
court except for the purpose of establishing
the defense of res judicata, collateral
estoppel, or the law of the case.
ATTORNEY FOR APPELLANT ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE
Timothy J. Burns Curtis T. Hill, Jr.
Indianapolis, Indiana Attorney General of Indiana
Ellen H. Meilaender
Deputy Attorney General
Indianapolis, Indiana
IN THE
COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA
William Ryan, March 20, 2017
Appellant-Defendant, Court of Appeals Case No.
49A02-1606-CR-1468
v. Appeal from the Marion Superior
Court
State of Indiana, The Honorable Rebekah Pierson-
Appellee-Plaintiff. Treacy, Judge
Trial Court Cause No.
49G19-1603-CM-10662
Barnes, Judge.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 49A02-1606-CR-1468 | March 20, 2017 Page 1 of 6
Case Summary
[1] William Ryan appeals his conviction for Class B misdemeanor public
intoxication. We affirm.
Issue
[2] Ryan raises one issue, which we restate as whether the evidence is sufficient to
sustain his conviction.
Facts
[3] On March 19, 2016, Officer John Walters of the Indianapolis Metropolitan
Police Department was working off-duty at Tiki Bob’s Cantina in Indianapolis.
Officer Walters was in uniform standing with his marked police car in front of
the business. Officer Walters saw the bar’s staff physically remove Ryan from
the business, place him on the sidewalk, and tell him to leave. Ryan was “very
aggressive” toward the bar’s staff, using profanity, and “pretty belligerent.” Tr.
p. 9. Officer Walters noticed that Ryan had slurred speech and red and glassy
eyes, smelled of alcohol, wavered while he stood, and staggered when he
walked. Ryan stood “with balled fists” at the entrance of the bar. Id. at 11.
Employees had to stop letting people into the bar to deal with Ryan. Officer
Walters approached Ryan and told him to leave, and Ryan became
“belligerent” with the officer and started “cussing” at him. Id. at 12. Officer
Walters repeatedly told Ryan to leave, and Ryan “[g]ot right in [the officer’s]
face,” stood “in [the officer’s] face with balled fists,” and repeatedly demanded
the officer’s badge number, which the officer repeatedly provided. Id. at 13, 15.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 49A02-1606-CR-1468 | March 20, 2017 Page 2 of 6
At one point, Officer Walters had to push Ryan away because he was so
belligerent and in the officer’s face. Because of Ryan’s aggressive behavior and
failure to leave the area, Officer Walters thought there was “an imminent
chance for him to start a physical fight or to entice somebody else to fight with
him.” Id. Officer Walters then arrested Ryan.
[4] The State charged Ryan with Class B misdemeanor public intoxication and
alleged that he had either breached the peace or was in imminent danger of
breaching the peace. After a bench trial, Ryan was found guilty as charged.
The trial court sentenced him to twenty days in jail and 270 days of probation.
Ryan now appeals.
Analysis
[5] Ryan argues that the evidence is insufficient to sustain his conviction. When
reviewing the sufficiency of the evidence needed to support a criminal
conviction, we neither reweigh evidence nor judge witness credibility. Bailey v.
State, 907 N.E.2d 1003, 1005 (Ind. 2009). “We consider only the evidence
supporting the judgment and any reasonable inferences that can be drawn from
such evidence.” Id. We will affirm if there is substantial evidence of probative
value such that a reasonable trier of fact could have concluded the defendant
was guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. Id.[6] Indiana Code Section 7.1-5-1-3(a)(3) makes it a Class B misdemeanor “for a
person to be in a public place or a place of public resort in a state of intoxication
caused by the person’s use of alcohol . . . , if the person . . . breaches the peace
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 49A02-1606-CR-1468 | March 20, 2017 Page 3 of 6
or is in imminent danger of breaching the peace . . . .” Ryan argues that the
evidence was insufficient to prove that he was intoxicated or that he breached
the peace or was in imminent danger of breaching the peace.
[7] Indiana Code Section 9-13-2-86 defines “intoxicated” as “under the influence of
. . . alcohol . . . so that there is an impaired condition of thought and action and
the loss of normal control of a person’s faculties.” “Impairment can be
established by evidence of: (1) the consumption of a significant amount of
alcohol; (2) impaired attention and reflexes; (3) watery or bloodshot eyes; (4)
the odor of alcohol on the breath; (5) unsteady balance; (6) failure of field
sobriety tests; and (7) slurred speech.” Vanderlinden v. State, 918 N.E.2d 642,
644 (Ind. Ct. App. 2009), trans. denied.
[8] Ryan testified that he had been drinking on the evening in question. Officer
Walters noticed that Ryan had slurred speech and red and glassy eyes, smelled
of alcohol, wavered while he stood, and staggered when he walked. Ryan was
belligerent and aggressive during the confrontation with the bar’s staff and
during his interaction with Officer Walters. Ryan argues that he was merely
agitated because he had been “unfairly thrown out of the bar” and because
Officer Walters would not listen to his complaints. Appellant’s Br. p. 11.
Ryan’s argument is merely a request that we reweigh the evidence, which we
cannot do. The evidence was sufficient to prove that Ryan was intoxicated.
[9] Next, Ryan argues that he did not breach the peace and that he was not in
imminent danger of breaching the peace. A breach of the peace includes all
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 49A02-1606-CR-1468 | March 20, 2017 Page 4 of 6
violations of public peace, order, or decorum. Lemon v. State, 868 N.E.2d 1190,
1194 (Ind. Ct. App. 2007). A breach of the peace is “a violation or disturbance
of the public tranquility or order and includes breaking or disturbing the public
peace by any riotous, forceful, or unlawful proceedings.” Id. Our supreme
court has stated that violence, either actual or threatened, is an essential
element of breaching the peace. Price v. State, 622 N.E.2d 954, 960 n. 6 (Ind.
1993).
[10] Here, the State presented evidence that, after being forcibly removed from the
bar and placed on the sidewalk, Ryan was belligerent and aggressive with
Officer Walters. Officer Walters repeatedly told Ryan to leave, and Ryan “[g]ot
right in [the officer’s] face,” stood “in [the officer’s] face with balled fists,” and
repeatedly demanded the officer’s badge number, which the officer repeatedly
provided. Tr. p. 13, 15. At one point, Officer Walters had to push Ryan away
because he was so belligerent and in the officer’s face. Given the evidence that
Ryan balled up his fists, repeatedly got in Officer Walters’s face, was belligerent
and aggressive, and refused to leave the area despite several instructions to do
so, we conclude the evidence was sufficient to show that Ryan threatened
violence and disturbed the public tranquility or order. The evidence is sufficient
to show that Ryan breached the peace or was in imminent danger of breaching
the peace. See Williams v. State, 989 N.E.2d 366, 370-371 (Ind. Ct. App. 2013)
(holding that the evidence was sufficient for the trial court to find the defendant
guilty of public intoxication where he was extremely intoxicated, staggered
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 49A02-1606-CR-1468 | March 20, 2017 Page 5 of 6
from side to side, refused to move off of the street, was belligerent with the
officers, and jerked away from officers).
Conclusion
[11] The evidence is sufficient to sustain Ryan’s conviction for Class B misdemeanor
public intoxication. We affirm.
[12] Affirmed.
Kirsch, J., and Robb, J., concur.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 49A02-1606-CR-1468 | March 20, 2017 Page 6 of 6