Cruz v. State
| Decision Date | 31 December 2012 |
| Docket Number | No. 49A02–1204–CR–301.,49A02–1204–CR–301. |
| Citation | 980 N.E.2d 915 |
| Parties | Israel CRUZ, Appellant–Defendant, v. STATE of Indiana, Appellee–Plaintiff. |
| Court | Indiana Appellate Court |
Joel M. Schumm, Appellate Clinic Director, Amy L. Beard, Certified Legal Intern, Indiana University Robert H. McKinney School of Law, Indianapolis, IN, Ruth Johnson, Marion County Public Defender, Indianapolis, IN, Attorneys for Appellant.
Gregory F. Zoeller, Attorney General of Indiana, Brian Reitz, Deputy Attorney General, Indianapolis, IN, Attorneys for Appellee.
Israel Cruz has never held an Indiana driver's license, and he has multiple convictions of operating a vehicle having never received a license. In 2011, the BMV determined that Cruz was a habitual traffic violator ("HTV") and sent notice of an HTV suspension to 3518 Steer Street in Indianapolis. Cruz was subsequently pulled over for speeding while the HTV suspension was in effect. Cruz was charged with operating a vehicle while suspended as an HTV. At Cruz's bench trial, a Bureau of Motor Vehicles ("BMV") employee testified that when a person who has never been licensed commits a traffic offense, the BMV obtains the person's address from court records. However, the 3518 Steer Street address does not appear in any of the court records that were submitted into evidence; on the contrary, the court records contained three different addresses for Cruz. The BMV employee was not able to testify as to how the BMV determined that Cruz's address was 3518 Steer Street. Cruz testified that he does not live at 3518 Steer Street and did not know that he was suspended. At the conclusion of the trial, the court found Cruz guilty and entered judgment as a class A misdemeanor.
On appeal, Cruz raises several issues, but we find one of them dispositive: whether there was sufficient evidence that Cruz knew that he was suspended. Given the complete lack of evidence regarding how the BMV determined that notice should be mailed to 3518 Steer Street, we must conclude that the State failed to establish the statutory presumption that a person has knowledge of a suspension if notice is sent to the person's "last address shown." See Ind.Code § 9–30–10–16.
Nor has the State argued that the record contains direct evidence that Cruz knew he was suspended. Therefore, we reverse Cruz's conviction.
On July 7, 2011, Indiana State Police Trooper Seth Tomey was stationed along Interstate 65 in Indianapolis, watching for speeders. Trooper Tomey clocked a vehicle driven by Cruz at seventy-one miles per hour; the speed limit in that area was fifty-five miles per hour. Trooper Tomey relayed that information to Trooper Mike McCreary, who initiated a traffic stop. Cruz presented what Trooper McCreary thought was a Mexican identification card or possibly a Mexican driver's license. Trooper McCreary conducted a records check and learned that Cruz was an HTV.
The State charged Cruz with operating a motor vehicle while suspended as an HTV, a class D felony. Cruz waived his right to a jury trial, and a bench trial was held on March 21, 2012. The State presented testimony of Troopers Tomey and McCreary, and during their testimony, Cruz stipulated that he was the person driving.
The State also presented testimony from Nathan Moore, who is the program director for the BMV's Policy and Programs Division. Moore identified State's Exhibit 1 as "an HTV packet," which is "a compilation of the official driver record along with the violations that we used to determine [that] the driver [is a] habitual traffic violator." Tr. at 22–23. The HTV packet reflects that the BMV sent notice of the HTV determination to 3518 Steer Street in Indianapolis on February 23, 2011. Moore explained how the BMV determines a person's address:
Typically when a person applies for a license or an ID card, they have to provide proof of residency to us in the form of utility bills or leases, those types of things. In [Cruz's] case he was never licensed so in those cases, the Bureau is required to establish a record for folks who don't already have a driver record and so we would have gotten the address from the first conviction that we established the record with, as provided by the Court.
The HTV packet includes three documents titled "Indiana Abstract of Court Record." State's Ex. 1 at 15–17. These documents list the following addresses for Cruz: 352 Steer Street, 33 South Harris Street, and 252 Steer Street, all in Indianapolis. Cruz's driver record dates back to 2004, when he received a speeding ticket. Moore "surmise[d]" that the 3518 Steer Street address came from whatever records were generated in connection with the speeding ticket. Tr. at 34. 3518 Steer Street is the only address listed in the driver record itself, and all BMV notices since 2004 have been sent to that address. Moore testified that if an HTV notice was returned undeliverable, the HTV packet would not reflect that.
Cruz testified in his own defense. He admitted that he has never had an Indiana driver's license and has never gone to the BMV to apply for one. He also acknowledged that he had convictions of driving having never received a license in 2009, 2010, and 2011.1 He admitted that he knew he was not supposed to drive because he was not licensed; however, he denied having any knowledge of the HTV suspension.2 He testified that he lives at a different address on Steer Street than the one used by the BMV.
At the conclusion of the bench trial, the court found that "the State met [its] burden beyond a reasonable doubt and that the defendant did not rebut the presumption that Mr. Cruz knew his license was suspended or restricted." Id. at 48. The court exercised its authority to enter judgment as a class A misdemeanor and sentenced Cruz to 365 days, all suspended to probation except for time served. Cruz now appeals.
Cruz challenges his conviction and sentence on several grounds, but we find the following issue to be dispositive: whether there was sufficient evidence that Cruz knew that he was suspended. We conclude that there is not.
Our standard of review for a sufficiency of the evidence claim is well settled:
When reviewing the sufficiency of evidence supporting a conviction, we will not reweigh the evidence or judge the credibility of witnesses. We must look to the evidence most favorable to the conviction together with all reasonable inferences to be drawn from that evidence. We will affirm a conviction if there is substantial evidence of probative value supporting each element of the crime from which a reasonable trier of fact could have found the defendant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.
Stewart v. State, 866 N.E.2d 858, 862 (Ind.Ct.App.2007) (citations omitted). The State has the burden of proving all elements of the charged crime beyond a reasonable doubt. Moon v. State, 823 N.E.2d 710, 715 (Ind.Ct.App.2005), trans. denied.
Cruz was accused of violating Indiana Code Section 9–30–10–16(a), which provides:
Indiana Code Section 9–30–10–16(b) creates the following presumption concerning the driver's knowledge:
The State may attempt to prove knowledge by relying on the presumption or by offering direct proof of the driver's knowledge. State v. Jackson, 889 N.E.2d 819, 822 (Ind.2008).
Cruz asserts that this case raises an issue of first impression: the meaning of "last address...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Sanchez v. State
...and Decision The State has the burden of proving all elements of a charged crime beyond a reasonable doubt. Cruz v. State, 980 N.E.2d 915, 918 (Ind.Ct.App.2012). “The insanity defense is an affirmative defense for which the defendant carries the burden of proof by a preponderance of the evi......
- Bowers v. State
-
Clemans v. State
...§ 9–30–10–16. There are two ways for the State to prove that a defendant knows his driving privileges are suspended. Cruz v. State, 980 N.E.2d 915, 919 (Ind.Ct.App.2012). The first is service from the BMV by mail. Ind.Code § 9–30–10–16(b). The second is by proof of the driver's knowledge. S......
-
Toombs v. State
...of evidence supporting a conviction, we will not reweigh the evidence or judge the credibility of witnesses. Cruz v. State, 980 N.E.2d 915, 918 (Ind.Ct.App.2012). We must look to the evidence most favorable to the conviction together with all reasonable inferences to be drawn from that evid......