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: RYAN E. LACKEY Fort Wayne, Indiana

ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE: GREGORY F. ZOELLER Attorney General of Indiana NICOLE M. SCHUSTER Deputy Attorney General Indianapolis, Indiana

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

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA
WILLIS SIMMONS, Appellant-Defendant, vs. STATE OF INDIANA, Appellee-Plaintiff. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )

Dec 30 2011, 9:13 am

CLERK

No. 02A03-1106-CR-316

APPEAL FROM THE ALLEN SUPERIOR COURT The Honorable John F. Surbeck, Jr., Judge Marcia L. Linsky, Magistrate Cause No. 02D05-1104-CM-1910

December 30, 2011 MEMORANDUM DECISION - NOT FOR PUBLICATION VAIDIK, Judge

Case Summary Willis Simmons appeals his convictions for Class A misdemeanor resisting law enforcement and Class B misdemeanor disorderly conduct. He argues that the evidence is insufficient for both convictions. Concluding that the evidence is sufficient, we affirm. Facts and Procedural History Around 11:20 p.m. on March 31, 2011, Fort Wayne Police Department Officers Martin Grooms and Jason Brown were dispatched to a house on Schaper Drive, which was in a quiet residential neighborhood, in response to a possible domestic battery in progress. As the fully-uniformed officers approached the house, they saw a man look out the front window. The officers took up a position behind a car and waited for additional officers to arrive. As the officers waited, Simmons walked out the front door and stood on the porch. When the officers directed Simmons to walk toward them with his hands in view, he responded, "Fu** you, I aint gotta do sh**." Tr. p. 78. The officers again directed Simmons to walk toward them, but Simmons again said, "I aint gotta do sh**. You come to me." Id. At this point, several officers in marked cars arrived on the scene, and people exited the house and stood on the front porch. Believing the situation to be safe, the officers approached Simmons, who was sitting on a low brick wall on the edge of the porch, to explain why they were there and that they needed to make sure everyone was okay. Simmons responded in a "very loud" voice, "I dont have to tell you sh**" and "Fu** you, I aint gotta tell you sh**." Id. at 80-81. The officers repeatedly asked

2

Simmons to quiet down, but to no avail. The other occupants of the house also asked Simmons to be quiet, but he did not listen to them either. The officers then explained to Simmons that they needed his identification in order to process their report, but Simmons responded, "Fu** you, I dont gotta give you my I.D." Id. at 82. At this point, the officers decided to arrest Simmons, who was still sitting, for disorderly conduct. As Officer Brown grabbed Simmons right arm, he told Simmons that he was under arrest and to stand up. Simmons, however, "forcibly pulled back away from him." Id. at 83; see also id. at 96 (Officer Brown explaining that when he grabbed Simmons arm, Simmons "jerk[ed] away and pull[ed] backwards."). Officer Grooms grabbed Simmons left arm, and both officers directed him to the ground. Once Simmons was on the ground, he had his right arm tucked underneath his body. Officer Brown attempted to get Simmons right arm out from underneath him, repeatedly yelling "Give me your right hand, give me your right hand." Id. at 97. Simmons refused and "tighten[ed] his grasp." Id. Eventually, Officer Brown "forcefully had to pry

[Simmons] arm out from underneath him," at which point the officers arrested him and helped him to his feet. Id. at 84. All the while Simmons continued "cussing," "yelling," and "screaming." Id. Once in the patrol car, Simmons continued yelling. Id. at 84-85. The State charged Simmons with Class A misdemeanor resisting law enforcement and Class B misdemeanor disorderly conduct. Following a jury trial, Simmons was found guilty as charged. The trial court sentenced him to concurrent terms of ninety days in jail. Simmons now appeals.

3

Discussion and Decision Simmons contends that the evidence is insufficient to support his convictions for Class A misdemeanor resisting law enforcement and Class B misdemeanor disorderly conduct. When reviewing the sufficiency of the evidence to support a conviction, we must consider only the probative evidence and reasonable inferences supporting the verdict. Drane v. State, 867 N.E.2d 144, 146 (Ind. 2007). We do not assess witness credibility or reweigh the evidence. Id. When confronted with conflicting evidence, we consider it most favorably to the trial courts ruling. Id. We affirm the conviction unless "no reasonable fact-finder could find the elements of the crime proven beyond a reasonable doubt." Id. (quotation omitted). It is not necessary that the evidence overcome every reasonable hypothesis of innocence. Id. at 147. The evidence is sufficient if an inference may reasonably be drawn from it to support the verdict. Id. I. Resisting Law Enforcement To convict Simmons of Class A misdemeanor resisting law enforcement as charged here, the State had to prove that he knowingly or intentionally forcibly resisted, obstructed, or interfered with Officer Brown while he was lawfully engaged in the execution of his duties. Appellants App. p. 7; see also Ind. Code

Download Willis Simmons v. State of Indiana.pdf

Indiana Law