WASHINGTON COLEMAN v. STATE (2025)

MEMORANDUM DECISION

Case Summary

[1] Martell Washington-Coleman appeals his convictions for Level 6 felony resisting law enforcement and Class C misdemeanor reckless driving, arguing the State presented insufficient evidence. We affirm.

Facts and Procedural History

[2] On February 9, 2024, Sergeant Rachel Corona and Sergeant Elijah Arias, both with the Mishawaka Police Department, were traveling in an unmarked police vehicle when they noticed a car parked at a nearby Baymont Hotel. The officers were familiar with Washington-Coleman from prior encounters and knew the car to be associated with him. Because Washington-Coleman had an active warrant, the officers parked in the lot to conduct surveillance and contacted Lieutenant Eric Laudeman for backup. The officers then observed Washington-Coleman exit the hotel and enter the driver's seat of a gold Cadillac.

[3] The Cadillac pulled out of the parking lot and traveled approximately “[twenty] feet” when Lieutenant Laudeman “pulled behind” it and activated his lights to initiate a traffic stop. Tr. Vol. III p. 106. The Cadillac did not stop and instead “accelerated” onto the highway, with Lieutenant Laudeman pursuing. Id. The pursuit reached speeds of 105 miles per hour. Lieutenant Laudeman eventually terminated the pursuit once the Cadillac crossed the state border into Michigan.

[4] The State charged Washington-Coleman with Level 6 felony resisting law enforcement and Class C misdemeanor reckless driving. A jury trial was held in February 2025, at which Sergeant Corona and Sergeant Arias identified Washington-Coleman as the person they saw in the Cadillac's driver's seat. The jury found Washington-Coleman guilty of both offenses.¹ The trial court sentenced him to two years executed in the Indiana Department of Correction. Washington-Coleman now appeals his convictions.

Discussion and Decision

[5] Washington-Coleman's sole issue on appeal is whether the State presented sufficient evidence to prove he was the individual driving the Cadillac. Our standard of review is well settled:

For sufficiency of the evidence challenges, we consider only probative evidence and reasonable inferences that support the judgment of the trier of fact. On sufficiency challenges, we will neither reweigh evidence nor judge witness credibility. We will affirm the conviction unless no reasonable fact-finder could find the elements of the crime proven beyond a reasonable doubt.

Hall v. State, 177 N.E.3d 1183, 1191 (Ind. 2021) (citations omitted).

[6] In order to convict Washington-Coleman of Level 6 felony resisting law enforcement, the State was required to prove he knowingly or intentionally fled from a law enforcement officer after the officer identified himself and that in doing so he used a vehicle. Ind. Code § 35-44.1-3-1(c)(1) (2024). To convict Washington-Coleman of Class C misdemeanor reckless driving, the State was required to prove he operated a vehicle and recklessly drove at such an unreasonably high rate of speed as to endanger the safety or the property of others. Ind. Code § 9-21-8-52(a)(1)(A) (2019).

[7] Washington-Coleman asserts the State failed to provide sufficient evidence identifying him as the Cadillac's driver. But it is well-established that the uncorroborated testimony of one witness is sufficient to sustain a conviction on appeal. Scott v. State, 871 N.E.2d 341, 343 (Ind. Ct. App. 2007), trans. denied. Both Sergeant Corona and Sergeant Arias testified they witnessed Washington-Coleman—who they knew from prior encounters and who they identified in court—enter the Cadillac on the driver's side. They then notified Lieutenant Laudeman, who quickly got behind the Cadillac, attempted a traffic stop, and then pursued the car when it did not stop. This testimony is sufficient to prove Washington-Coleman was the driver of the Cadillac.

[8] Washington-Coleman acknowledges the officers’ testimony but argues it should be disregarded because he believes the officers’ views of the Cadillac “would have been obscured” due to their position in the parking lot. Appellant's Br. p. 12. This is a request to reweigh evidence, which we will not do. See Hall, 177 N.E.3 at 1191.

[9] Affirmed.

FOOTNOTES

1.   Another of Washington-Coleman's cases—71D01-2402-F6-150—was tried simultaneously and submitted to the same jury. The jury acquitted Washington-Coleman of that offense.

Scheele, Judge.

Foley, J., and Kenworthy, J., concur.