Anthony Lee Leturgez v. State of Indiana

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MEMORANDUM DECISION - NOT FOR PUBLICATION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