Court Opinion

ID: 9885511
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-10-06 13:06:08.677497+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:48:54.877873
License: Public Domain

BAKER, Judge,
dissenting.
I respectfully dissent and part ways with the majority’s conclusion that the evidence was insufficient to support Lock’s conviction for operating a motor vehicle while privileges are suspended. I cannot agree that the State is inviting us to merely “speculate” that the Zuma, which was capable of traveling at a speed of at least forty-three miles per hour, is a motor vehi-*284ele within the meaning of the statute. Op. at 283.
As the majority observes, Indiana Code section 9-13-2-105(d) states that a “motorized bicycle” must have a design speed of “not more than twenty-five miles per hour.... ” Whether a “motorized bicycle or moped is a ‘motor vehicle’ will depend on the factual or procedural context.” State v. Drubert, 686 N.E.2d 918, 921 (Ind. Ct.App.1997). In this case, I believe that it is quite reasonable to infer that Lock’s Zuma has a maximum design speed of more than twenty-five miles per hour. The undisputed evidence establishes that Trooper Nathalang determined that Lock was operating the Zuma at a speed of forty-three miles per hour. And Lock was traveling on a flat, level, and dry roadway, at a constant speed, when Trooper Natha-lang was following him. Appellant’s App. p. 57.
The statutes provide that if the vehicle is designed to go faster than twenty-five miles per hour, it is a “motor vehicle,” for purposes of the charged offense. I.C. §§ 9 — 13—2—105(a); -109. That said, I embrace Trooper Nathalang’s deposition testimony that “if you go faster than 25 miles an hour, it’s no longer a motorized bicycle. It’s considered a motorcycle.” Appellant’s App. p. 65-66.
In my view, Lock’s operation of the Zuma is the precise behavior that the statute under which Lock was charged seeks to prevent. Moreover, I find this court’s opinion in Annis v. State, 917 N.E.2d 722 (Ind.Ct.App.2009), instructive. In that case, the evidence demonstrated that the defendant was driving a vehicle with a cylinder capacity in excess of that permitted under the motorized bicycle statute. Moreover, the defendant was operating the vehicle uphill at a speed of forty-one miles per hour. We concluded that the evidence was sufficient to support the defendant’s conviction for operating a vehicle with a suspended license because it was established that the defendant was operating a motor vehicle rather than a motorized bicycle. Id. at 725.
As in Annis, I believe that the State presented ample evidence in this case to establish that Lock’s Zuma is a motor vehicle and that he was in violation of Indiana Code section 9-30-10-16. Thus, I would affirm Lock’s conviction.