Tuesday, July 26, 2016
Ind. Decisions - Court of Appeals issues 3 opinion(s) today (and 3 NFP memorandum decision(s))
For publication opinions today (3):
In Jerry W. Young v. State of Indiana, an 8-page opinion, Judge Bradford writes:
In 2012, Appellant-Defendant Jerry Young raped A.B. In 2015, Young was convicted of Class A felony rape, Class A felony criminal deviate conduct, and Class D felony intimidation. Young was also found to be a repeat sexual offender and a habitual criminal offender. The trial court merged the convictions for rape and criminal deviate conduct and sentenced Young to an aggregate ninety-year term. On appeal, Young argues that the trial court erred by enhancing his rape conviction twice. The State concedes the trial court erred in this regard but argues that the trial court should have reduced the criminal deviate conduct charge to a lesser-included offense and applied one of the enhancements to that conviction. We reverse and remand with instructions. * * *In Clayton Doctor v. State of Indiana, a 19-page opinion, Judge Riley writes:
The trial court erred by merging Young’s convictions for rape and criminal deviate conduct and by applying two enhancements to a single conviction. On remand, we order the trial court to enter judgment of conviction for Class B criminal deviate conduct. With regards to sentencing, Young’s fifty-year sentence for rape, and thirty-year habitual offender enhancement, remain unchanged. Young’s repeat sexual offender enhancement will be attached to his criminal deviate conduct conviction with both sentences running concurrent to the rape conviction for an aggregate sentence of eighty years.
Doctor presents one issue on interlocutory appeal, which we restate as follows: Whether the trial court erred in denying his motion to suppress the evidence seized during the course of a traffic stop.In Lamont Perkins v. State of Indiana, an 11-page opinion, Sr. Judge Sharpnack writes:
The State raises one issue on cross-appeal, which we restate as follows: Whether Doctor’s interlocutory appeal should be dismissed because he did not timely file his Notice of Appeal. * * *
Based on the foregoing, we conclude that Doctor has not forfeited his right to appeal based on an untimely Notice of Appeal; therefore, the State’s motion to
dismiss is denied. We further conclude that the basis for the traffic stop did not violate Doctor’s constitutional rights; therefore, the trial court appropriately denied his motion to suppress.
Perkins challenges the sufficiency of the evidence supporting his conviction of possession of paraphernalia with a prior conviction. Perkins claims that because the State was required to prove that he intended to use the syringe needles to introduce a controlled substance into his body, its failure to offer evidence of track marks on his arms or evidence of past drug use, renders the evidence insufficient. Further, he claims that even though heroin residue was found in the bottle cap inside the cigarette pack, the State failed to introduce evidence of heroin residue in or on the syringe needles. In addition, he highlights what he describes as a lack of evidence that the amount of heroin found in the bottle cap was sufficient for him to inject into his body. Further, he claims that the possession of the syringe needles, plus what he describes as an insufficient amount of heroin in the bottle cap, cannot sustain his conviction because there is insufficient evidence that there was a “controlled substance . . . otherwise nearby or available in the locked facility where Perkins was returning.” * * * Affirmed.NFP civil decisions today (0):
NFP criminal decisions today (3):
Posted by Marcia Oddi on July 26, 2016 11:11 AM
Posted to Ind. App.Ct. Decisions