BROWN v. STATE (2024)

MEMORANDUM DECISION

[1] To convict Tirrell T. Brown of Class A misdemeanor driving with a suspended license, the State was required to prove that Brown had a prior unrelated conviction for the same basic offense. The State did so by presenting a certified record from the Bureau of Motor Vehicles (BMV) documenting Brown's prior conviction. A jury found Brown guilty, and he appeals his conviction, arguing that the State's evidence was insufficient. We affirm.

Facts

[2] One day in 2023, Fort Wayne Police Officer Timothy Christian initiated a traffic stop of a vehicle with an expired tag. During the stop, the vehicle's driver repeatedly refused to give his name or any form of identification. Officer Christian therefore arrested the driver for refusing to identify himself. A search incident to that arrest uncovered a state issued identification card in the driver's wallet, which identified the driver as Brown. Using “the driver's license number that was on the ID,” Officer Christian looked up Brown's BMV driving record. Tr., p. 72. The record showed that Brown had a “suspended prior,” indicating that he “ha[d] no driving privileges in Indiana.” Id. at 73.

[3] The State charged Brown with Class A misdemeanor driving while suspended and Class C misdemeanor refusal to identify oneself. At Brown's jury trial, the State presented a certified BMV driving record for a “TIRRELL T BROWN.” Exhs., p. 12. Officer Christian testified that the address on the driving record matched the address on Brown's identification card. Officer Christian also identified the document as being Brown's driving record by the “driver's license number.” Id. at 73. The record showed that Brown's driving privileges were suspended when Officer Christian pulled him over and that Brown had an unrelated conviction for driving while suspended in 2021.

[4] Brown testified in his defense that he has never had nor needed a driver's license because the BMV “only has power over people who do commerce.” Id. at 91. He also testified that he did not need to identify himself during the traffic stop because he “wasn't committing a crime.” Id. The jury found Brown guilty of both charged offenses, and after entering judgments of conviction, the trial court sentenced him to one year imprisonment with the possibility of home detention. Brown only appeals his conviction for driving while suspended, arguing that the State presented insufficient evidence to support it.

Discussion and Decision

[5] When reviewing the sufficiency of the evidence to support a criminal conviction, we neither reweigh evidence nor judge witness credibility. Bailey v. State, 907 N.E.2d 1003, 1005 (Ind. 2009). We consider only the evidence supporting the judgment and any reasonable inferences that can be drawn from such evidence. Id. We will affirm if there is substantial evidence of probative value such that a reasonable trier of fact could have concluded the defendant was guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. Id.

[6] Indiana's driving while suspended statute provides that “an individual who operates a motor vehicle upon a highway while the individual's driving privileges, driver's license, or permit is suspended or revoked commits a Class A infraction.” Ind. Code § 9-24-19-1. The offense, however, becomes a Class A misdemeanor if the individual:

(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 [the basic driving while suspended statute].

Ind. Code § 9-24-19-2.

[7] Brown only challenges the sufficiency of the evidence to prove he had a prior unrelated conviction for driving while suspended. His claim centers on whether the State established his identity with respect to the certified BMV driving record under Indiana Code § 9-30-3-15. That statute 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 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.

Ind. Code § 9-30-3-15.

[8] Here, the certified BMV driving record matched Brown's name as well as the address on Brown's identification card. But Brown complains that Officer Christian identified the document as Brown's driving record by the “driver's license number.” Tr., p. 73. Because the undisputed evidence showed that Brown has never had a driver's license, he contends a driver's license number could not establish the driving record as his.¹

[9] Brown construes Officer Christian's testimony too narrowly and fails to consider other evidence. The certified BMV driving record listed a “license number” for a “Regular ID Card.” Exhs., p. 6. It also referred to the same number as a “driver number.” Id. at 7-10. And Officer Christian testified that he initially looked up Brown's BMV driving record using “the driver's license number” that was on Brown's identification card. Tr., p. 72. Though identification cards do not have driver's license numbers, they do have identification card numbers.² Thus, a reasonable interpretation of Officer Christian's testimony is that he identified the driving record as Brown's by matching his identification card number to the license number listed on the record.

[10] Thus, under Indiana Code § 9-30-3-15, the certified BMV driving record provided prima facie evidence of Brown's prior unrelated conviction for driving while suspended. We therefore find sufficient evidence to support Brown's new conviction for the offense as a Class A misdemeanor.

[11] Affirmed.

FOOTNOTES

1.   Brown does not argue that the trial court erred by admitting the certified BMV driving record into evidence. But to the extent his contention might be better understood as an admissibility challenge, he waived the claim by failing to object to the record's admission at trial. Stephenson v. State, 29 N.E.3d 111, 118 (Ind. 2015) (“[A] failure to timely object to the erroneous admission of evidence at trial will procedurally foreclose the raising of such error on appeal unless the admission constitutes fundamental error.”).

2.   “An identification card number is the ‘[u]nique identification number’ that must be written on the front of an identification card issued under Indiana Code section 9-24-16-3(b)(5).” In re Resnover, 979 N.E.2d 668, 674 (Ind. Ct. App. 2012). “Similarly, a driver's license number is the ‘unique identifying number of [a driver's] permit or license.’ ” Id. (citing Ind. Code § 9-24-115(a)(7)).

Weissmann, Judge.

Vaidik, J., and Foley, J., concur.