Riley, J.
Tyson presents one issue on appeal, which we restate as: Whether the State presented sufficient evidence beyond a reasonable doubt to convict Tyson of resisting law enforcement.
At the corner of Shroyer and 15th Street, Officer Pierce initiated contact with Tyson. She could smell an odor of alcohol and marijuana. Tyson “was uncooperative, refusing to stop, continuously having his hands in his pockets, backing away, telling me that he had done nothing wrong, that he did not have to stop.” (Tr. p. 39). As the situation appeared to escalate, Officer Pierce requested backup. Tyson persisted in keeping his hands in his pockets and Officer Pierce “could see that there were items in his pockets.” (Tr. p. 39). Officer Pierce tried to explain that Tyson could not keep his hands in his pockets and to keep his hands where she could see them. “He was warned repeatedly if he didn’t keep his hands where [Officer Pierce] could see them, that he would be tased.” (Tr. p. 40). Tyson turned around, his hands still hidden from view, and began climbing steps to a house, continuing to disregard Officer Pierce’s commands. Officer Pierce administered her taser, which caused Tyson to fall down the steps. When the taser stopped, Tyson was again belligerent and uncooperative, and refused to put his hands behind his back. Officer Pierce administered her taser a second time and was able to handcuff Tyson. He was subsequently placed under arrest.
….
Tyson contends that the State failed to present sufficient evidence beyond a reasonable doubt to sustain his conviction for resisting law enforcement.
To convict Tyson of resisting law enforcement, the State was required to establish that Tyson “knowingly or intentionally . . . forcibly resiste[d], obstruct[ed], or interfere[d] with a law enforcement officer . . . while the officer [was] lawfully engaged in the execution of the officer’s duties[.]” See I.C. § 35- 44.1-3-1(a)(1). The term “forcibly” is a distinct element of the offense that modifies all three verbs “resists, obstructs, or interferes.” See K.W. v. State, 984 N.E.2d 610, 612 (Ind. 2013).
In an attempt to persuade this court that the State failed to carry its burden of proof, Tyson likens his situation to Spangler, in which our supreme court concluded that no forcible resistance was present. Spangler, 607 N.E.2d at 724. In Spangler, a sheriff’s deputy attempted to serve the defendant with process. Id. at 721. Spangler refused to accept the papers, turned away from the officer, and walked away despite the officer’s order to return. Id. While the Spangler court noted that the element of resistance was satisfied, Spangler’s action did not amount to forcible resistance. However, unlike the situation in Spangler, Tyson did not merely walk away; rather, Tyson’s refusal to take his hands out of his pockets, which clearly contained items, amounted to a threatening gesture presenting an imminent danger of bodily injury to Officer Pierce. See A.A. v. State, 29 N.E.3d 1277, 1281 (Ind. Ct. App. 2015). Accordingly, we affirm Tyson’s conviction for resisting law enforcement.
CONCLUSION
Based on the foregoing, we hold that the State presented sufficient evidence beyond a reasonable doubt to sustain Tyson’s conviction for resisting law enforcement.
Affirmed.
Baker, J. and Brown, J. concur