Opinions April 4, 2019

Indiana Court of Appeals
Sidney A. Berry v. State of Indiana
18A-CR-1769
Criminal. Affirms the denial of Sidney Berry’s motion to suppress evidence. Finds Detective Marc Deshaies had sufficient basis under both the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution and Article 1, Section 11 of the Indiana Constitution to perform a safety pat-down of Berry.

Akram Abd v. State of Indiana
18A-CR-780
Criminal. Affirms Akram Abd’s conviction of murder and Level 5 felony robbery. Finds there is sufficient evidence to support the convictions and that the Marion Superior Court did not commit fundamental error in admitting character evidence or in instructing the jury.  

Troy Lee v. Liberty Mutual Fire Insurance Company
18A-CT-2048
Civil tort. Affirms the Delaware Circuit Court’s award of summary judgment in favor of Liberty Mutual Insurance Company, concluding it is entitled to offer underinsured motorist benefits coverage in a lesser amount than the underlying liability coverage.

Vaylan Keishaughn Glazebrook v. State of Indiana (mem. dec.)
18A-CR-1269
Criminal. Affirms Vaylan Glazebrook’s aggregate 113½-year sentence for conviction of Level 1 Felony Attempted Murder;  seven counts of Level 1 Felony Rape; Level 2 Felony Burglary; two counts of Level 3 Felony Armed Robbery; two counts of Level 3 Felony Criminal Confinement; and Level 6 Felony Resisting Law Enforcement. Finds the sentence is not appropriate in light of offense and his character and that there is sufficient evidence to support the attempted murder conviction, among other things.

Chanse T. Starr v. State of Indiana (mem. dec.)
18A-CR-969
Criminal. Affirms the Allen Superior Court’s revocation of Chanse Starr’s probation, ordering him to serve four years of his previously suspended sentence. Finds Starr was not denied his due process right to counsel. Finds no error with respect to the sanction ordered by the trial court.

James Griffin v. State of Indiana (mem. dec.)
18A-CR-2426
Criminal. Affirms in part, reveres in part James Griffin’s convictions of Level 6 felony counts of residential and domestic battery; Class A misdemeanor counts of theft and interference with the reporting of a crime; and Class B misdemeanor criminal mischief; as well as his adjudication as a habitual offender. Finds a double jeopardy violation and remands with instructions to vacate the interference with the reporting of a crime conviction and to modify the sentencing order.

In the Matter of: J.H. (Child Alleged to be in Need of Services) and D.H. (Mother); D.H. (Mother) v. Indiana Department of Child Services, and Child Advocates, Inc. (mem. dec.)
18A-JC-2417
Juvenile CHINS. Affirms the adjudication of D.H.’s child J.H. as a child in need of services. Finds there is sufficient evidence to support the Marion Superior Court’s findings that J.H. is a CHINS. Also finds the trial court properly relied on evidence of D.H.’s pattern of behavior during the informal adjustment agreement with the Department of Child Services.

Curtis Jackson v. Aramark Food Services and Mike Church (mem. dec.)
18A-CT-1584
Civil tort. Dismisses Curtis Jackson’s appeal of the denial of his motion to enforce order of judgment. Finds the Indiana Court of Appeals does not have jurisdiction over Jackson’s appeal because it stems from an order that is not final and is not appropriate for interlocutory review.

Eric Lee Yost v. State of Indiana (mem. dec.)
18A-CR-2151
Criminal. Affirms Eric Yost’s 10-year sentence for conviction of Class B felony aggravated battery. Finds there is sufficient evidence to support the conviction and that the sentence is not inappropriate. Finds the Lake Superior Court did not abuse its discretion when it denied Yost’s requested jury instruction regarding a reasonable theory of innocence or when it imposed the advisory sentence for aggravated battery.

Anthony A. Mashburn v. State of Indiana (mem. dec.)
18A-CR-472
Criminal. Affirms Anthony Mashburn’s convictions of two counts of Class A felony child molesting and two counts of Class C felony child molesting. Find the “incredible dubiosity” rule does not apply and sufficient evidence supports the convictions. Finds there was no misconduct at closing arguments, and that if the La Porte Superior Court erred in instructing the jury, any error was harmless.