MEMORANDUM DECISION
Pursuant to Ind. Appellate Rule 65(D),
this Memorandum Decision shall not be FILED
regarded as precedent or cited before any May 16 2017, 11:26 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
Donald J. Berger Curtis T. Hill, Jr.
Law Office of Donald J. Berger Attorney General of Indiana
South Bend, Indiana
George P. Sherman
Deputy Attorney General
Indianapolis, Indiana
IN THE
COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA
Orlando Dejuan Denae Mitchell, May 16, 2017
Appellant-Defendant, Court of Appeals Case No.
71A04-1608-CR-1835
v. Appeal from the St. Joseph
Superior Court
State of Indiana, The Honorable Paul E. Singleton,
Appellee-Plaintiff Magistrate
Trial Court Cause No.
71D01-1602-CM-874
Crone, Judge.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 71A04-1608-CR-1835| May 16, 2017 Page 1 of 4
Case Summary
[1] Orlando Dejuan Denae Mitchell appeals his conviction, following a bench trial,
for class A misdemeanor resisting law enforcement. Mitchell asserts that the
State presented insufficient evidence to support his conviction. Finding the
evidence sufficient, we affirm.
Facts and Procedural History
[2] The facts most favorable to the conviction indicate that in the early morning
hours of February 5, 2016, South Bend Police Department Officer Joshua
Brooks was patrolling the area of Miami Street and Indiana Avenue. Officer
Brooks was wearing his police uniform and was driving his marked police
vehicle. Officer Brooks activated his vehicle’s emergency lights and initiated a
traffic stop of a red Chevrolet Impala due to a burned-out headlight. The driver
of the Impala, Mitchell, pulled the vehicle to the side of the road. Mitchell
exited the Impala, turned and made eye contact with Officer Brooks, and then
“took off running.” Tr. Vol. 2 at 8. Officer Brooks followed Mitchell and
yelled, “[S]top, police.” Id. at 18. However, Officer Brooks eventually lost
sight of Mitchell.
[3] Officer Brooks returned to his police vehicle and checked the Impala’s license
plate and registration. The vehicle was registered to Kiera Shell. Officer
Brooks attempted to call Shell, but Shell’s grandmother, Jane Hardy, answered
the phone. Hardy gave Officer Brooks Mitchell’s name and told the officer that
Mitchell may be the person who was driving Shell’s vehicle. Mitchell is the
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 71A04-1608-CR-1835| May 16, 2017 Page 2 of 4
father of two of Shell’s children, and Shell sometimes allowed him to use her
vehicle. On the night in question, Shell left her keys in the vehicle but did not
know who had driven it.
[4] The State charged Mitchell with class A misdemeanor resisting law
enforcement. Following a bench trial, the trial court found Mitchell guilty as
charged and sentenced him to thirty days in jail. This appeal ensued.
Discussion and Decision
[5] Mitchell contends that the State presented insufficient evidence to support his
conviction. When reviewing a claim of insufficient evidence, we neither
reweigh the evidence nor assess witness credibility. Bell v. State, 31 N.E.3d 495,
499 (Ind. 2015). We look to the evidence and reasonable inferences drawn
therefrom that support the conviction, and will affirm if there is probative
evidence from which a reasonable factfinder could have found the defendant
guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. Id. In short, if the testimony believed by the
trier of fact is enough to support the conviction, then the reviewing court will
not disturb it. Id. at 500.
[6] To convict Mitchell of his offense as charged, the State was required to prove
beyond a reasonable doubt that he knowingly fled from Officer Brooks after
Officer Brooks, by visible or audible means, identified himself and ordered
Mitchell to stop. See Ind. Code § 35-44.1-3-1(a)(3). Mitchell concedes that all
the elements of the offense of class A misdemeanor resisting law enforcement
were established except for his identity as the perpetrator of the offense.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 71A04-1608-CR-1835| May 16, 2017 Page 3 of 4
Specifically, he asserts that “the events took place on a dark night and though
the subject vehicle was illuminated and the driver was standing next to the
vehicle, the identity of the driver is certainly questionable.” Appellant’s Br. at
9. Moreover, he points out that Shell was “uncertain” if Mitchell drove her car
on the night in question, and that he also presented alibi evidence that he was
with Davalta Hassan, the mother of five of his children, at the time of the
offense. Id.
[7] However, during trial, Officer Brooks positively identified Mitchell as the driver
of the Impala who ran from him after he ordered him to stop. Indeed, Officer
Brooks was quite confident in his identification and testified that, when
Mitchell stepped out of the Impala, the officer’s view of him “was great. He
was lit up very well by my vehicle. My spotlight was on. All of my overheads
were on so the plate was clear, the suspect was clear.” Tr. Vol. 2 at 11. This
evidence was sufficient to establish Mitchell’s identity as the perpetrator of the
offense. Mitchell’s claims to the contrary amount to a request for us to reweigh
the evidence and reassess witness credibility, and we will not. We affirm his
conviction for class A misdemeanor resisting law enforcement.
[8] Affirmed.
Baker, J., and Barnes, J., concur.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 71A04-1608-CR-1835| May 16, 2017 Page 4 of 4