Subscriber Benefit
As a subscriber you can listen to articles at work, in the car, or while you work out. Subscribe NowCourt of Appeals of Indiana
Douglas Housemeyer and Diane Housemeyer v. Kurt W. Babcock (mem. dec.)
22A-CT-02169
Civil tort. Affirms Hamilton Superior Court’s denial of Douglas Housemeyer and Diane Housemeyer motion to correct error affirming the jury’s verdict. Finds the trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying appellant’s motion to correct error and by affirming the jury’s verdict which awarded zero dollars in damages.
Ryan Gibbs v. State of Indiana (mem. dec.)
22A-CR-02673
Criminal. Affirms Ryan Gibbs’s conviction of one count Class A misdemeanor invasion of privacy. Finds there was sufficient evidence to sustain his conviction.
Justin L. Doughty v. State of Indiana (mem. dec.)
22A-CR-01971
Criminal. Affirms Justin Doughty’s sentence of aggregate 24 years with 22 years executed and two years suspended. Finds LaGrange Superior Court did not abuse its discretion in sentencing him and that his sentence is appropriate in light of the nature of the offenses and his character.
Lacy Baker v. State of Indiana (mem. dec.)
22A-CR-02721
Criminal. Affirms Noble Superior Court’s order that Lacy Baker serve the balance of her previously suspended sentence and the revocation of her community corrections placement. Finds the trial court did not abuse its discretion in revoking Baker’s community corrections placement. Reverses revocation order finding the trial court erroneously ordered Baker to serve more time than was previously suspended. Remands with instructions to correct a scrivener’s error.
Shawn McMullin v. State of Indiana (mem. dec.)
22A-PC-00443
Post conviction relief petition. Affirms the Dearborn Superior Court’s ruling on Shawn McMullin’s petition. Finds the post-conviction court did not err in ordering the cause submitted upon affidavit, ruling on McMullin’s motions or deciding McMullin failed to prove his post-conviction claims.
J.E. v. A.E. (mem. dec.)
22A-PO-02629
Protection order. Affirms St. Joseph Circuit Court’s grant of an order for protection in favor of A.E. against J.E. and denial of J.E. request for an order for protection against A.E. Finds the trial court did not err in granting an order for protection in favor of A.E. and against J.E. and in denying J.E.’s motion for an order for protection against A.E.
Please enable JavaScript to view this content.