MEMORANDUM DECISION
Pursuant to Ind. Appellate Rule 65(D),
this Memorandum Decision shall not be FILED
regarded as precedent or cited before any Dec 12 2019, 10:39 am
court except for the purpose of establishing CLERK
the defense of res judicata, collateral Indiana Supreme Court
Court of Appeals
estoppel, or the law of the case. and Tax Court
ATTORNEY FOR APPELLANT ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE
Tyler D. Helmond F. Aaron Negangard
Voyles Vaiana Lukemeyer Baldwin & Chief Deputy Attorney General
Webb Tiffany A. McCoy
Indianapolis, Indiana Deputy Attorney General
Indianapolis, Indiana
IN THE
COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA
Ronald M. Lemon, December 12, 2019
Appellant-Defendant, Court of Appeals Case No.
19A-CR-1603
v. Appeal from the Vanderburgh
Superior Court
State of Indiana, The Honorable Jill R. Marcrum,
Appellee-Plaintiff. Magistrate
Trial Court Cause No.
82D02-1812-CM-8048
Brown, Judge.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 19A-CR-1603 | December 12, 2019 Page 1 of 6
[1] Ronald M. Lemon appeals his conviction for driving while suspended. He
raises one issue which is whether the evidence is sufficient to sustain his
conviction. We affirm.
Facts and Procedural History
[2] On December 4, 2018, Vanderburgh County Sheriff’s Sergeant David Eads was
in an unmarked vehicle and observed Lemon driving a vehicle with expired
plates and that the style of plate had not been issued for many years. Sergeant
Eads followed Lemon who drove in a circle, entered a business parking lot,
exited the vehicle, changed shirts, and began walking away.
[3] Evansville Police Detective Tony Johnson responded to the area and
approached Lemon with Sergeant Eads. Lemon identified himself as Ronald
Lemon, said he was just out for a walk, and denied any involvement in driving
the vehicle. Sergeant Eads asked him if he was supposed to be driving, and he
said “no.” Transcript Volume II at 8. Sergeant Eads and another officer
verified that Lemon’s driving status was suspended. On December 5, 2018, the
State charged Lemon with Count I, driving while suspended as a class A
misdemeanor; and Count II, operating with an expired plate as a class C
infraction. 1
1
The State also charged Lemon with Count III, possession of marijuana as a class A misdemeanor, but later
dismissed the charge. (App. II 14-15; Tr. II 16)
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 19A-CR-1603 | December 12, 2019 Page 2 of 6
[4] At the bench trial, the State presented the testimony of Sergeant Eads and
Detective Johnson. When asked to identify a document, Sergeant Eads stated:
“It’s a certified BMV record, driving status for Ronald Maurice Lemon. It
states his license status is suspended. And I remember at the time, he had 28
previous suspensions. Seven previous convictions.” Id. The prosecutor moved
to admit the certified BMV record as State’s Exhibit 1, Lemon’s counsel
indicated that he believed it was admissible, and the court admitted it without
objection. The court found Lemon guilty of driving while suspended under
Count I and sentenced him to sixty days in the Vanderburgh County Jail. 2
Discussion
[5] The issue is whether the evidence is sufficient to sustain Lemon’s conviction.
Lemon argues that the State failed to prove that he was suspended and had a
prior conviction. He asserts that the State never admitted evidence linking him
to the BMV record. The State argues that it presented sufficient evidence and
that Lemon preserved no claim that the BMV record was improperly admitted.
[6] When reviewing the sufficiency of the evidence to support a conviction,
appellate courts must consider only the probative evidence and reasonable
inferences supporting the verdict. Drane v. State, 867 N.E.2d 144, 146 (Ind.
2007). It is the factfinder’s role, not that of appellate courts, to assess witness
2
The court also found Lemon guilty of Count II, operating with an expired plate, but later stated: “I’m going
to waive the fines and costs and judgment and costs on Count 2.” Transcript Volume II at 17.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 19A-CR-1603 | December 12, 2019 Page 3 of 6
credibility and weigh the evidence to determine whether it is sufficient to
support a conviction. Id. Appellate courts, when confronted with conflicting
evidence, must consider the evidence most favorable to the trial court’s ruling.
Id. We will affirm unless no reasonable factfinder could find the elements of the
crime proven beyond a reasonable doubt. Id. The evidence is sufficient if an
inference may reasonably be drawn from it to support the verdict. Id. at 147.
[7] The charging information alleged that “Ronald Maurice Lemon, did operate a
motor vehicle upon a public highway . . . which said Ronald Maurice Lemon’s
driving privilege, license or permit was suspended or revoked . . . .” Appellant’s
Appendix Volume II at 14. The offense of driving while suspended as a class A
misdemeanor is governed by Ind. Code § 9-24-19-2, which provides:
An individual who:
(1) knows that the individual’s driving privileges, driver’s
license, or permit is suspended or revoked; and
(2) operates a motor vehicle upon a highway less than ten
(10) years after the date on which judgment was entered
against the individual for a prior unrelated violation of
section 1 of this chapter, this section, IC 9-1-4-52 (repealed
July 1, 1991), or IC 9-24-18-5(a) (repealed July 1, 2000);
commits a Class A misdemeanor.
[8] Ind. Code § 9-30-3-15 provides:
In a proceeding, prosecution, or hearing where the prosecuting
attorney must prove that the defendant had a prior conviction for
an offense under this title, the relevant portions of a certified
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 19A-CR-1603 | December 12, 2019 Page 4 of 6
computer printout or electronic copy made from the records of
the bureau are admissible as prima facie evidence of the prior
conviction. However, the prosecuting attorney must establish
that the document identifies the defendant by the defendant’s
driver’s license number or by any other identification method
utilized by the bureau.
[9] Initially, we note that Lemon did not object to the admission of the certified
BMV record. Rather, when the court asked Lemon’s counsel if he had a chance
to look at the BMV record, he stated: “I have, Your Honor, and I believe that
the State indicated that this is submitted under the business records exception to
hearsay. And so we believe that it’s admissible.” Transcript Volume II at 9.
[10] The record reveals that Sergeant Eads asked Lemon if he was supposed to be
driving, and he said “no.” Id. at 8. Sergeant Eads also testified that “an officer
there with a computer . . . was able to verify his driving status was suspended.”
Id. When asked whether he was able to verify that Lemon was suspended, he
responded affirmatively. Detective Johnson testified that Lemon “was IDed at
the time and then that’s when his driver status was ran and we confirmed – it
was confirmed that he was suspended.” Id. at 13. The BMV record lists
Lemon’s license status as suspended and indicates multiple suspensions and
convictions.
[11] Sergeant Eads testified that Lemon identified himself as Ronald Lemon, which
is the name on the BMV record produced at trial. The charging information
asserted that Lemon was a male with a specific license number and a date of
birth of May 14, 1987. The BMV record produced at trial contained the name
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 19A-CR-1603 | December 12, 2019 Page 5 of 6
of Ronald Maurice Lemon and identified this individual as a male with the
same license number as that in the charging information and a date of birth of
May 14, 1987. Additionally, the BMV record included a physical description of
Lemon, which indicated that he had a height of six feet, a weight of 150
pounds, brown hair, and green eyes. The trial court, as the trier of fact, was
able to observe Lemon in the courtroom and make a reasonable inference that
he was the person identified in the BMV record. Based upon our review of the
evidence, we conclude that the State presented evidence of a probative nature
from which a trier of fact could find beyond a reasonable doubt that Lemon
committed the offense of driving while suspended as a class A misdemeanor.
[12] For the foregoing reasons, we affirm Lemon’s conviction.
[13] Affirmed.
Baker, J., and Riley, J., concur.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 19A-CR-1603 | December 12, 2019 Page 6 of 6
Ronald M. Lemon v. State of Indiana (mem. dec.)
Combined Opinion