Subscriber Benefit
As a subscriber you can listen to articles at work, in the car, or while you work out. Subscribe NowThis content was created with the assistance of artificial intelligence and has been reviewed by an editor for accuracy.
Indiana Court of Appeals
Mark Landon Taylor v. State of Indiana
No. 25A-CR-2155
Criminal. Appeal from the Hamilton Superior Court, Judge William J. Hughes. Affirms Taylor’s convictions and sentence for Class A misdemeanor domestic battery and Class A misdemeanor theft. Holds the trial court did not violate Taylor’s Sixth Amendment rights because the sentence imposed for domestic battery did not exceed the statutory maximum authorized by Indiana Code §§ 35-50-3-1 and 35-50-3-2, and thus Blakely does not apply. Further holds the trial court did not abuse its discretion in finding Taylor’s substance use was a contributing factor to the offense and sentencing him under Indiana Code § 35-50-3-1(c). Also holds the trial court did not err by imposing probationary terms without a substantiating report because Taylor received 365 days of probation on each misdemeanor conviction, and no single probationary term exceeded 12 months, making the statutory report requirement inapplicable. Rejects Taylor’s argument that the aggregate probationary period required a report and notes Taylor did not preserve a challenge to the consecutive nature of his sentences. Accordingly, affirms the judgment and sentence. Appellant’s attorney: Michael D. Frischkorn. Appellee’s attorneys: Office of the Indiana Attorney General.
Indiana Court of Appeals
K.S. v. Y.L.
No. 25A-DC-1554
Civil. Appeal from the Monroe Circuit Court, Judge Emily A. Salzmann. Affirms the trial court’s order modifying custody to grant sole legal and physical custody of the parties’ two minor children to mother. Holds the trial court did not abuse its discretion by relying on the guardian ad litem’s report where father failed to object, had advance notice of the report, cross-examined the GAL at the hearing, and both parties relied on the report’s contents. Further holds the evidence supports the findings that a substantial and continuing change in circumstances occurred and that modification was in the children’s best interests, based on father’s frequent and increasing travel, repeated demands for parenting-time modifications creating instability, breakdown in parental communication, unilateral decision-making by father regarding schooling and medical matters, and father’s pattern of involving the children in parental conflict. Concludes the trial court properly considered the statutory factors for modifying physical and legal custody and acted within its discretion. Appellant’s attorney: Lauren E. Harpold. Appellee’s attorney: Zachary J. Stock.
Please enable JavaScript to view this content.