Rene Tlatoa-Lara v. State of Indiana (mem. dec.) ( 2020 )

MEMORANDUM DECISION
Pursuant to Ind. Appellate Rule 65(D),
this Memorandum Decision shall not be FILED
regarded as precedent or cited before any Aug 31 2020, 9:23 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
ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLANT ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE
Anne Medlin Lowe Curtis T. Hill, Jr.
James A. Piatt Attorney General
Riley Williams & Piatt, LLC Tina L. Mann
Indianapolis, Indiana Deputy Attorney General
Indianapolis, Indiana
IN THE
COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA
René Tlatoa-Lara, August 31, 2020
Appellant-Defendant, Court of Appeals Case No.
20A-CR-792
v. Appeal from the Hamilton
Superior Court
State of Indiana, The Honorable David K. Najjar,
Appellee-Plaintiff Judge
Trial Court Cause No.
29D05-1912-CM-10455
Crone, Judge.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 20A-CR-792| August 31, 2020 Page 1 of 5
Case Summary
[1] Following a bench trial, René Tlatoa-Lara challenges the sufficiency of the
evidence supporting his conviction for class A misdemeanor operating a vehicle
while intoxicated (OWI) endangering a person. We affirm.
Facts and Procedural History
[2] The facts most favorable to the trial court’s judgment are that shortly after 4:00
p.m. on December 19, 2019, Pastor Daniel Shelton of Venture Christian
Church in Carmel was working in the church when he saw Tlatoa-Lara
“stumbling” through the church’s “office complex.” Tr. Vol. 2 at 7. Shelton
asked if he could help. Tlatoa-Lara, whose speech was slurred, “said that a
friend had told him [they] might be able to help him with a flat tire that he had
in the vehicle in the [church] parking lot.” Id. at 8. Shelton replied, “Well, let’s
go look at your tire,” and asked a colleague to accompany them. Id. Tlatoa-
Lara “struggle[d] to walk […] without leaning against the wall a couple times
and just seemed to struggle to stay on his feet.” Id. Both passenger-side tires on
Tlatoa-Lara’s pickup truck “were shredded. Tread completely gone.” Id. at 9.
Shelton asked if Tlatoa-Lara had driven the truck to the parking lot, and he said
that he had. Suspecting that Tlatoa-Lara was intoxicated and wanting to “keep
him from getting in the vehicle and driving off[,]” the pastor called 911 at
approximately 4:19 p.m. Id. at 10.
[3] Several Carmel Police Department officers responded to the call. Sergeant Ben
Fisher arrived at 4:26 p.m. He noticed that the truck’s tires were “shredded”
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 20A-CR-792| August 31, 2020 Page 2 of 5
and that “there was a pretty significant odor of alcohol coming from” Tlatoa-
Lara. Id. at 15. The sergeant asked Tlatoa-Lara “where he’d been coming from
prior to ending up at this location.” Id. at 23. Tlatoa-Lara replied that “he had
been at a winery and brewery” with friends and coworkers. Id. The sergeant
asked Tlatoa-Lara “if he knew what he hit. When asked if he had struck […]
another vehicle, he said ‘Oh, God, I hope not.’” Id. Tlatoa-Lara “was very,
very confused on exactly how the damage occurred to […] the two tires on the
passenger side. He seemed to have no recollection of exactly how that
happened and could not offer anything.” Id. at 23-24.
[4] Officer Brian Babczak also questioned Tlatoa-Lara, who said that “he had been
coming from Urban Vines Winery in Westfield[,]” which is approximately five
miles from the church, and had consumed wine and “very strong beer.” Id. at
28. The officer administered several field sobriety tests to Tlatoa-Lara and
determined “[t]hat he was impaired above the legal limit.” Id. at 32. Tlatoa-
Lara consented to a chemical breath test and was transported to the Hamilton
County Jail, where he registered .180.
[5] The State charged Tlatoa-Lara with class A misdemeanor operating a vehicle
with an alcohol concentration equivalent of .15 or more and class A
misdemeanor OWI endangering a person. After a bench trial, the trial court
found him guilty as charged, entered judgment of conviction on the latter
charge, and sentenced him to 365 days, all suspended except for time served.
Tlatoa-Lara now appeals.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 20A-CR-792| August 31, 2020 Page 3 of 5
Discussion and Decision
[6] Tlatoa-Lara challenges the sufficiency of the evidence supporting his
conviction. In reviewing a sufficiency claim, we neither reweigh the evidence
nor assess the credibility of witnesses. Cannon v. State, 142 N.E.3d 1039, 1042
(Ind. Ct. App. 2020). We consider only the evidence most favorable to the
judgment and the reasonable inferences supporting it. Id. Circumstantial
evidence alone is sufficient to support a conviction and need not overcome
every reasonable hypothesis of innocence. Ward v. State, 138 N.E.3d 268, 277
(Ind. Ct. App. 2019). “[W]e will affirm the conviction unless no reasonable
trier of fact could have found the elements of the crime beyond a reasonable
doubt.” Cannon, 142 N.E.2d at 1042 (alteration in Cannon) (quoting Gray v.
State, 957 N.E.2d 171, 174 (Ind. 2011)).
[7] To convict Tlatoa-Lara of class A OWI endangering a person, the State had to
prove beyond a reasonable doubt that he operated a vehicle while intoxicated in
a manner that endangered a person. Ind. Code § 9-30-5-2(b). Indiana Code
Section 9-13-2-117.5 defines “operate” as “to navigate or otherwise be in actual
physical control of a vehicle[.]” Indiana Code Section 9-13-2-86 defines
“intoxicated” in pertinent part as under the influence of alcohol “so that there is
an impaired condition of thought and action and the loss of normal control of a
person's faculties.” “The element of endangerment can be established by
evidence showing that the defendant’s condition or operating manner could
have endangered any person, including the public, the police, or the
defendant.” Outlaw v. State, 918 N.E.2d 379, 381 (Ind. Ct. App. 2009), adopted
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 20A-CR-792| August 31, 2020 Page 4 of 5
by 929 N.E.2d 196 (Ind. 2010). But “the State is required to present evidence
beyond mere intoxication in order to prove the element of endangerment and
support a conviction of OWI as a Class A misdemeanor.” Temperly v. State, 933
N.E.2d 558, 567 (Ind. Ct. App. 2010), trans. denied (2011), cert. denied.
[8] Tlatoa-Lara asserts that the State failed to prove that he operated his truck while
he was intoxicated and that his condition or operating manner could have
endangered any person. We disagree. His admission to Sergeant Fisher that he
had no idea how he shredded his tires supports a reasonable inference that he
was intoxicated while he was operating his truck, and his driving on the
shredded tires could have endangered other members of the public or himself.
Tlatoa-Lara’s arguments to the contrary are simply invitations to reweigh the
evidence in his favor, which we must decline. Therefore, we affirm his
conviction.
[9] Affirmed.
Robb, J., and Brown, J., concur.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 20A-CR-792| August 31, 2020 Page 5 of 5