Pursuant to Ind. Appellate Rule 65(D), this
Memorandum Decision shall not be
regarded as precedent or cited before any Nov 27 2013, 5:46 am
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 GREGORY F. ZOELLER
Indianapolis, Indiana Attorney General of Indiana
JOSEPH Y. HO
Deputy Attorney General
Indianapolis, Indiana
IN THE
COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA
LARAYSHA WEBB, )
)
Appellant-Defendant, )
)
vs. ) No. 49A02-1304-CR-341
)
STATE OF INDIANA, )
)
Appellee-Plaintiff. )
APPEAL FROM THE MARION SUPERIOR COURT
The Honorable Linda E. Brown, Judge
Cause No. 49F10-1204-CM-23289
November 27, 2013
MEMORANDUM DECISION - NOT FOR PUBLICATION
CRONE, Judge
Case Summary
Laraysha Webb challenges the sufficiency of evidence to support her conviction for
class C misdemeanor operating a vehicle without a license. Finding the evidence sufficient,
we affirm.
Facts and Procedural History
On April 8, 2012, police were dispatched to an Indianapolis apartment complex to
address a physical fight between some women, possibly involving a firearm. When Officer
Daniel Kistner arrived on the scene, officers had already placed two women in handcuffs.
Shortly thereafter, Webb drove up next to Officer Kistner, exited her vehicle, and approached
the handcuffed women, one of whom was her mother. When Officer Kistner heard Webb
yell and use profanity, he instructed her to be quiet and to return to her vehicle and leave.
She refused to return to her vehicle, in which two small children were in the back seat. When
the officer asked to see her identification, she questioned why. She explained that she had a
license but did not have it with her because she had left home in a hurry. She gave the officer
her name and date of birth. Officer Kistner radioed her personal information to police
communications and discovered that her license status was “unlicensed out of Indiana and
Illinois.” Tr. at 16. He confirmed the information by running a Bureau of Motor Vehicles
(“BMV”) check on his squad car computer and arrested her at the scene.
On April 11, 2012, the State charged Webb with class B misdemeanor disorderly
conduct and class C misdemeanor operating a vehicle without a license. At Webb’s bench
trial, the State introduced her BMV records, which showed that she had obtained an Indiana
2
operator’s license three months after her arrest. The trial court found Webb not guilty of
disorderly conduct and guilty of operating without a license. Webb now appeals her
conviction. Additional facts will be provided as necessary.
Discussion and Decision
Webb challenges the sufficiency of evidence to support her conviction for operating a
vehicle without a license. When reviewing an insufficiency of evidence claim, we neither
reweigh evidence nor judge witness credibility. Baird v. State, 955 N.E.2d 8451, 847 (Ind.
Ct. App. 2011). Rather, we consider the evidence and reasonable inferences most favorable
to the judgment to determine whether a reasonable trier of fact could conclude that the
defendant was guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. Id. If there is substantial evidence of
probative value to support the conviction, we will affirm. Roush v. State, 875 N.E.2d 801,
810 (Ind. Ct. App. 2007).
Indiana Code Section 9-24-18-1(a) (2010) states that a person “who knowingly or
intentionally operates a motor vehicle upon a highway and has never received a valid driving
license commits a Class C misdemeanor.” Subsection (e) states, “In a prosecution under this
section, the burden is on the defendant to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that the
defendant had been issued a driving license or permit that was valid at the time of the alleged
offense.”
Although Webb concedes that she did not have an Indiana driver’s license at the time
of her alleged offense, she claims that she had a valid Illinois driver’s license and that the
evidence therefore was insufficient to support her conviction. As support for her argument,
3
she cites her trial testimony and the information contained in the “Remarks” portion of her
BMV record. At trial, she testified that she had a valid Illinois driver’s license at the time of
her April 8, 2012 arrest and that she turned in her Illinois license when she obtained her
Indiana license three months after her arrest. Tr. at 23-24. However, her trial testimony was
controverted by evidence from Officer Kistner that according to a police communications
check on her license status, on April 8, 2012, Webb had neither an Indiana nor an Illinois
license. Id. at 16. During closing arguments, Webb’s counsel stated, “[I]t is true I did not
bring any paperwork showing she had an Illinois license.” Id. at 43. Counsel then explained
that he did not obtain the Illinois paperwork because he did not receive notice of the State’s
intent to introduce Webb’s BMV record until the morning of trial.
Webb’s certified Indiana BMV record shows that she did not have a valid Indiana
license on the date of her offense. State’s Ex. 1. The BMV record also shows that on
February 24, 2011, Webb was cited for disregarding a traffic device, a seatbelt violation, and
driving with “NO LICENSE OR PERMIT IN POSSESSION.” Id. With respect to Webb’s
Indiana licensure, the BMV record shows that she sought and was eventually issued an
Indiana operator’s license on July 24, 2012. She does not dispute that she had never had an
Indiana license prior to or at the time of her alleged offense. However, she now relies on her
Indiana BMV record, not for what it indicates about her Indiana licensure status, but for what
it allegedly indicates concerning her Illinois licensure status. In other words, she asserts that
the “Remarks” section of her Indiana BMV record corroborates her testimony that she had a
valid Illinois license on the date of the offense.
4
The “Remarks” section contains seven entries, listed in reverse chronological order:
ID card voluntarily surrendered on: 7/24/2012 6:43:22 PM
Interim License Effective: 7/24/2012, Reason: NEW ISSUE DL, OUT-OF-
STATE, Control #: 3186719, Expiration: 8/23/2012
License Effective: 07/24/2012, Issue Operator, OPERATOR, Endorsements:
None, Restrictions: None
Interim License Effective: 6/7/2012, Reason: DUPLICATE ID, IN-STATE,
Control #: 2925208, Expiration: 7/7/2012 1 [sic]
Interim License Effective: 9/10/2011, Reason: DUPLICATE DL, IN-STATE,
Control #: 1860868, Expiration: 10/10/2011
License Effective 09/10/2011, Duplicate ID Card, REGULAR ID CARD,
Endorsements: None, Restrictions: None
License Effective: 01/02/2009, Issue ID Card, REGULAR ID CARD,
Endorsements: None, Restrictions: None
Id. (emphasis added).
Webb cites the phrase “Reason: NEW ISSUE DL, OUT-OF-STATE,” highlighted
above, as evidence that she had an Illinois driver’s license. We disagree based on the most
recent entry, which indicates that in exchange for her license she surrendered an ID card, not
an Illinois license, as she suggests. Simply put, the certified Indiana BMV record does not
corroborate her testimony that she had a valid Illinois driver’s license at all, let alone at the
time of her offense. Her self-serving testimony was not sufficient to carry her burden of
proving by a preponderance of evidence that she had a valid driver’s license. In contrast, the
State presented evidence that Webb did not have a license with her at the time of the offense;
that when the arresting officer radioed her name and birthdate to headquarters, police
5
communications reported that she had no license in Indiana or Illinois; and that the BMV
record confirmed the information regarding Indiana licensure and said nothing regarding
Illinois licensure. Webb’s arguments on appeal are merely invitations to reweigh evidence
and judge witness credibility, which we may not do. Based on the foregoing, we conclude
that the evidence is sufficient to support Webb’s conviction. Accordingly, we affirm.
Affirmed.
BARNES, J., and PYLE, J., concur.
6