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. ATTORNEY FOR APPELLANT: BARBARA J. SIMMONS Oldenburg, Indiana ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE: GREGORY F. ZOELLER Attorney General of Indiana WADE JAMES HORNBACHER Deputy Attorney General Indianapolis, Indiana

FILED
of the supreme court, court of appeals and tax court

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA
LUIS VILLAR-FELIPE, Appellant- Defendant, vs. STATE OF INDIANA, Appellee- Plaintiff, ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )

Dec 22 2009, 9:58 am

CLERK

No. 49A02-0906-CR-495

APPEAL FROM THE MARION SUPERIOR COURT The Honorable Rebekah Pierson-Treacy, Judge Cause No. 49F19-0902-CM-22108

December 22, 2009 MEMORANDUM DECISION - NOT FOR PUBLICATION

ROBB, Judge

Case Summary and Issue Luis Villar-Felipe appeals his conviction, following a bench trial, of battery, a Class A misdemeanor.1 For our review, Villar-Felipe raises a single issue, which we restate as whether sufficient evidence supports his conviction of battery. Concluding the evidence is sufficient, we affirm. Facts and Procedural History In the early morning of February 1, 2009, Villar-Felipe was leaving a bar with his friend, Suzanna Chavez. Remundo Farin-Perez was also leaving the bar with two of his friends. Farin-Perez and Villar-Felipe had exchanged words earlier that night at the bar. Approximately one block from the bar, Farin-Perez's vehicle and Villar-Felipe's vehicle stopped side-by-side at a stop light. Both men exited their vehicles and a fight ensued. Each man testified the other started the fight. At some point during the fight, VillarFelipe retrieved a beer bottle from his vehicle and broke it over Farin-Perez's head, causing him to bleed profusely. Villar-Felipe then proceeded to cut Farin-Perez with the broken bottle on the face and arm. Officer Chandra Scherzinger of the Indianapolis Metropolitan Police Department was patrolling the area that morning and arrived at the scene shortly after Chavez had broken up the fight. Officer Scherzinger saw Farin-Perez sitting in his vehicle, bleeding from the head. She also saw a broken beer bottle on the ground near the vehicle. Officer Scherzinger spoke to Villar-Felipe and could tell he was intoxicated. She arrested VillarFelipe, and on February 3, 2009, the State charged him with battery and operating a

Villar-Felipe was also convicted of public intoxication, a Class B misdemeanor, but he does not challenge that conviction on appeal.

1

2

vehicle while intoxicated, both Class A misdemeanors, and public intoxication, a Class B misdemeanor.2 The trial court held a bench trial on May 6, 2009, at which it heard testimony from Villar-Felipe, Farin-Perez, and Officer Scherzinger. Villar-Felipe admitted he was drunk and that he and Farin-Perez fought. However, he claimed Farin-Perez instigated the fight and he only defended himself. Villar-Felipe denied hitting Farin-Perez with a bottle and claimed he did not know Farin-Perez was bleeding. The trial court found Villar-Felipe guilty of battery and public intoxication and sentenced him to an aggregate term of one year with thirty days executed and the remainder suspended to probation. Villar-Felipe now appeals. Discussion and Decision I. Standard of Review In reviewing sufficiency of the evidence claims: [we] must consider only the probative evidence and reasonable inferences supporting the verdict. It is the fact-finder's role, not that of appellate courts, to assess witness credibility and weigh the evidence to determine whether it is sufficient to support a conviction. To preserve this structure, when appellate courts are confronted with conflicting evidence, they must consider it most favorably to the trial court's ruling. Appellate courts affirm the conviction unless no reasonable fact-finder could find the elements of the crime proven beyond a reasonable doubt. It is therefore not necessary that the evidence overcome every reasonable hypothesis of innocence. [T]he evidence is sufficient if an inference may reasonably be drawn from it to support the verdict. Drane v. State, 867 N.E.2d 144, 146-47 (Ind. 2007) (citations and quotations omitted) (emphasis in original).

On February 5, 2009, the State dismissed the operating while intoxicated charge, apparently after determining Chavez had been driving the vehicle.

2

3

II. Battery In order to sustain a conviction of battery as a Class A misdemeanor, the State must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Villar-Felipe knowingly or intentionally touched Farin-Perez in a rude, insolent, or angry manner, and the touching resulted in bodily injury to Farin-Perez. See Ind. Code

Download Luis Villar-Felipe v. State of Indiana.pdf

Indiana Law