By Liz Shepherd
InkFreeNews

Miguel Enrique Delfin Cruz

WARSAW — The Indiana Court of Appeals has affirmed criminal convictions against Miguel Enrique Delfin Cruz.

Cruz, 28, attempted to appeal his 38 1/2-year prison sentence after his involvement in a violent altercation with Warsaw law enforcement.

During a January bench trial, Cruz was found guilty of criminal confinement, a level 2 felony; criminal confinement, a level 3 felony; battery on a public safety official, intimidation with a deadly weapon, carrying a handgun without a license with a sentence enhancement, and two counts of disarming a law enforcement officer, all level 5 felonies; and resisting law enforcement, intimidation, and two counts of pointing a firearm, all level 6 felonies.

Prior to the trial, Cruz pled guilty to possession of methamphetamine, a level 5 felony; carrying a handgun without a license, a class A misdemeanor; and possession of paraphernalia, a class C misdemeanor.

Cruz is currently serving his sentence at the Miami Correctional Level 3 Facility, with a projected release date of Dec. 19, 2043.

In his appellant’s brief, Cruz requested the Court of Appeals vacate his convictions.

A 22-page appellee’s brief, filed on Aug. 11 by Indiana Attorney General Todd Rokita and Deputy Attorney General Erica Sullivan, argued the state presented sufficient evidence to support Cruz’s Level 2 felony criminal confinement conviction for using a police officer as a shield. It further states sufficient evidence to negate Cruz’s claim of self-defense during the incident was presented at trial. The brief also argues Cruz cannot use voluntary intoxication as a defense for criminal offenses.

Cruz argued in his brief that there was no evidence showing he used one of the police officers involved in the altercation as a shield. He further requested his Level 2 criminal confinement charge be reduced to a Level 3 felony as a result.

The state’s brief mentioned a two-minute video clip presented as evidence during Cruz’s bench trial. The video showed Cruz overpowering one of the police officers, bashing the officer’s head into the ground, and pointing his gun at the officer.

“This was more than sufficient to show that (Cruz) substantially interfered with (the officer’s) liberty to move around,” read the brief.

The entirety of a camera’s footage also showed Cruz doing exactly what officers testified about, while Cruz only submitted a brief snippet of footage as part of his argument. Cruz also testified his “guess” was he intended to use the officer as a shield.

Cruz also argued his threats to a patron using the laundromat were the result of voluntary intoxication since he ingested methamphetamine. The state’s brief argues intoxication is only applicable as a defense if it is involuntary.

“Cruz’s argument that his ingestion of methamphetamine negates the knowing element of his intimidation conviction misstates the law,” read the state’s brief.

The state further argued Cruz’s behavior and words toward the patron constituted “true threats” which do not receive constitutional protection.

“Although Cruz had a heightened reaction to someone ‘messing with’ his laundry…it does not follow that he did not understand his statements to be a threat to use physical force,” read the brief.

The brief further states the prosecution negated Cruz’s claim of self-defense during the incident. In his appeal, Cruz stated video footage from the laundromat and audio from police body cameras showed Cruz was not an immediate threat to law enforcement. Cruz also argued he believed he was under attack and was defending himself.

“The State presented sufficient evidence for a reasonable fact-finder to conclude Cruz not only instigated and provoked the violence, he continued in the scuffle knowing he was fighting police officers, escalating the situation to a potentially deadly scenario,” read the state’s brief.

The state also argued Cruz was the initial aggressor through his actions and escalated the situation further by resisting officers’ commands.

“It ended up taking four police officers and a taser to end the scuffle,” read the brief. “The evidence Cruz principally relies on as to his claim of self-defense was his own self-serving testimony that he did not realize (a responding officer) was a police officer.”

The state did agree a notation regarding purposeful incarceration for Cruz should be added to Cruz’s sentencing order. At sentencing, Kosciusko Circuit Court Judge Michael Reed said purposeful incarceration would be appropriate after Cruz served a significant part of his sentence. However, the written sentencing order did not mention purposeful incarceration.

A 16-page memorandum decision filed by the Court of Appeals on Sept. 22 affirms Cruz’s convictions but requests the case go back to Kosciusko Circuit Court for the sole purpose of clarifying intentions to place Cruz in a purposeful incarceration program.

With Cruz’s self-defense claim, the Court states the prosecution successfully rebutted the claim based on evidence presented in the trial.

“Cruz’s appellate claim to the contrary amounts to nothing more than an invitation for this court to reweigh the evidence, which we will not do,” reads the memorandum.

The Court of Appeals also disapproved of Cruz’s request to downgrade his Level 2 felony criminal confinement charge to a Level 3 felony.

“Cruz’s appellate challenge amounts to nothing more than a request for this court to reweigh the evidence, which we will not do,” the memorandum states.

The Court also agreed with the state’s brief about Cruz being unable to use voluntary intoxication as a defense for making verbal threats against a laundromat patron. Indiana Code states intoxication can only be used as an defense when it is done without consent or the user is unaware the ingested substance may cause intoxication.

Related Articles

• Cruz Appeals Prison Sentence After Violent Altercation With Law Enforcement
• Cruz Receives 42-Year Sentence After Violent Altercation With Police Officers
• Cruz Found Guilty On Several Charges After Bench Trial