Preview:

Pursuant to Ind.Appellate Rule 65(D), this Memorandum Decision shall not be regarded as precedent or cited before any court except for the purpose of establishing the defense of res judicata, collateral estoppel, or the law of the case.

FILED
Mar 19 2009, 9:21 am
of the supreme court, court of appeals and tax court

CLERK

ATTORNEY FOR APPELLANT: WILLIAM F. THOMS, JR. Indianapolis, Indiana

ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE: GREGORY F. ZOELLER Attorney General of Indiana THOMAS D. PERKINS Deputy Attorney General Indianapolis, Indiana

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA

ERIC PROFFITT, Appellant-Defendant, vs. STATE OF INDIANA, Appellee-Plaintiff.

) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )

No. 49A05-0808-CR-502

APPEAL FROM THE MARION SUPERIOR COURT The Honorable Linda E. Brown, Judge Cause No. 49F10-0802-CM-41384

March 19, 2009 MEMORANDUM DECISION - NOT FOR PUBLICATION

BARNES, Judge

Case Summary Eric Proffitt appeals his conviction for Class B misdemeanor resisting law enforcement. We affirm. Issue Proffitt raises one issue, which we restate as whether there was sufficient evidence to support his conviction. Facts Indianapolis Metropolitan Police Officer Kevin Larussa responded to a shots fired call in the early morning hours of February 16, 2008. Officer Larussa was circling the block in his police cruiser while another officer went to the location of the call. Officer Larussa noticed two men crossing the middle of the street and drove toward them. The men turned to look at him and then began running. Officer Larussa was approximately a half block away from the men. He turned on his red and blue lights and siren, but the men continued running. The officers on the scene set up a perimeter and used a canine unit to assist in locating the men. Within approximately fifteen to thirty minutes, officers discovered Proffitt laying in the back of a nearby pickup truck. Proffitt had bloodshot eyes and slurred speech and smelled of alcohol. On February 16, 2008, the State charged Proffitt with Class A misdemeanor resisting law enforcement and Class B misdemeanor public intoxication. Following a bench trial, Proffitt was convicted of Class A misdemeanor resisting law enforcement and

2

sentenced to one year suspended. The trial court found he was not guilty of the public intoxication charge. This appeal followed. Analysis Proffitt argues that there is insufficient evidence to support his conviction. When reviewing the sufficiency of the evidence supporting a conviction, we will not reweigh the evidence or judge the credibility of witnesses. Staton v. State, 853 N.E.2d 470, 474 (Ind. 2006). We must look to the evidence most favorable to the conviction together with all reasonable inferences to be drawn from that evidence. Id. We will affirm a

conviction if there is substantial evidence of probative value supporting each element of the crime from which a reasonable trier of fact could have found the defendant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. Id. A person commits Class A misdemeanor resisting law enforcement if he or she knowingly or intentionally flees from a law enforcement officer after the officer has, by visual or audible means, including operation of the law enforcement officer's siren or emergency lights, identified himself or herself and ordered the person to stop. Ind. Code

Download Eric Proffitt v. State of Indiana.pdf

Indiana Law