Charmae L. Lesiewicz v. State of Indiana (mem. dec.), 20A03-1610-CR-2320

On December 9, 2014, Officer Cory Mosher stopped a vehicle in Elkhart County whose driver identified herself as Charmae Lesiewicz and produced vehicle registration and an Indiana photo ID but no driver’s license; the driver admitted her license was suspended and BMV records confirmed suspension.
Lesiewicz had a prior adjudication for operating while privileges suspended within the statutory look‑back period.
The State charged Lesiewicz with Operating a Motor Vehicle while Privileges Are Suspended (Class A misdemeanor).
A jury trial was set for November 12, 2015; Lesiewicz was present at the July 22, 2015 pretrial and was warned that failure to appear could result in trial in absentia.
Lesiewicz did not appear at trial; counsel moved for a continuance based on her claimed inability to afford travel from Michigan; the court denied the continuance, tried the case in absentia, and the jury convicted.
A bench warrant issued after she missed sentencing; she was later arrested and sentenced on September 21, 2016.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether trial court abused discretion by denying continuance and trying Lesiewicz in absentia	State: Court properly proceeded because defendant had notice and no acceptable explanation for absence	Lesiewicz: Lack of written trial notice and inability to afford travel meant absence was not a knowing, voluntary waiver; requested continuance	Affirmed — court did not abuse discretion: defendant had advance oral admonition at pretrial, counsel had reminded her, and no adequate explanation rebutted presumption of waiver
Whether evidence was sufficient to prove identity and prior suspension element	State: Officer observed, the driver identified herself, presented ID/registration, and BMV records matched, establishing identity and prior suspension	Lesiewicz: Paper BMV records alone insufficient; State needed stronger linking evidence (e.g., certified booking photo)	Affirmed — testimony identifying the driver plus matching BMV records provided sufficient evidence for a reasonable jury to find identity and prior suspension

Jackson v. State, 868 N.E.2d 494 (Ind. 2007) (defendant may waive right to be present; court may infer waiver when defendant knew trial date and failed to appear)
Freeman v. State, 541 N.E.2d 533 (Ind. 1989) (absence with notice permits trial in absentia when evidence shows defendant knew trial date)
Lampkins v. State, 682 N.E.2d 1268 (Ind. 1997) (presence on trial date is best evidence of waiver of right to be present)
Brown v. State, 839 N.E.2d 225 (Ind. Ct. App. 2005) (defendant tried in absentia must be afforded opportunity to explain absence to rebut presumption of waiver)
Sullivan v. State, 517 N.E.2d 1251 (Ind. Ct. App. 1988) (paper records alone insufficient to prove a prior conviction/identity in recidivist proceedings)
Murphy v. State, 555 N.E.2d 127 (Ind. 1990) (defendant need not be pointed out in court if sufficient evidence exists from which jury can deduce identity)
Drane v. State, 867 N.E.2d 144 (Ind. 2007) (standard of review for sufficiency: view evidence and reasonable inferences in favor of verdict)