Indiana Court of Appeals
Tyler Miller v. State of Indiana
Criminal. Affirms Tyler Miller’s aggregate 72-year sentence for his convictions of murder, Level 5 felony attempted robbery and Level 3 felony robbery. Finds the sentence is not inappropriate in light of the nature of the offenses and his character. Also finds Indiana Code § 35-50-1-2(c) and (d) do not prohibit the Marion Superior Court’s sentence under Count III, attempted robbery. Remands with instructions to enter an amended sentencing order and abstract of judgment which reflect Miller’s conviction for Level 5 felony attempted robbery under Count III.
Matthew E. Reust v. State of Indiana
Criminal. Affirms Matthew Reust’s conviction for Level 6 felony theft but reverses his conviction for Level 5 felony home improvement fraud. Finds the facts do not show that Reust’s conduct falls under the home improvement fraud statute. Also finds sufficient evidence to support the theft conviction. Remands to the Wabash Circuit Court with instructions to vacate Reust’s Level 5 felony home improvement fraud conviction, resentence Reust for his theft conviction and hold a hearing to determine the amount of restitution which is owed.
Nathan Cureton v. State of Indiana (mem. dec.)
Criminal. Affirms and reverses in part Nathan Cureton’s convictions of felony murder and Level 3 felony attempted robbery and his aggregate 60-year sentence. Finds Cureton’s convictions for both murder and attempted robbery violate the principals of double jeopardy, so his attempted robbery conviction must be vacated. Also finds the evidence is sufficient to sustain the murder conviction. Finally, finds Cureton failed to demonstrate that his 60-year sentence is inappropriate.
Daniel Shoffner v. State of Indiana (mem. dec.)
Criminal. Affirms Daniel Shoffner’s 40-year sentence, with 35 years executed and five years suspended to probation, for his conviction of Class A felony voluntary manslaughter. Finds the sentence is not inappropriate given the offense and his character.
Donald Carlisle v. State of Indiana (mem. dec.)
Criminal. Affirms Donald Carlisle’s conviction for Class A misdemeanor battery. Finds sufficient evidence to support the conviction.
Milton Anderson a/k/a LaQuan Apara v. State of Indiana (mem. dec.)
Criminal. Affirms LaQuan Apara’s aggregate convictions of attempted rape as a Class B felony, burglary as a Class B felony and robbery as a Class C felony, and his aggregate 30-year sentence. Reverses Apara’s designation as a credit restricted felon. Finds the Porter Superior Court did not abuse its discretion in the admission of testimony or in instructing the jury. Also finds the trial court erred in designating Apara as a credit restricted felon because he does not fall under the definition listed in Indiana Code § 35-31.5-2-72. Finally, finds Apara has not sustained his burden of establishing that his aggregate sentence is inappropriate. Remands for the Porter Superior Court to correct its sentencing order.
Erik T. Whitesell v. State of Indiana (mem. dec.)
Criminal. Affirms Erik Whitesell’s six-year sentence for his conviction of Level 5 felony dealing in methamphetamine. Finds his sentence is not inappropriate.
Immense Salon & Spa, LLC, and Micheal J. Covington v. Linda L. Williams, Kevin D. Williams, Melvin D. Brandenburg, and Studio 2000, Inc. (mem. dec.)
Civil plenary. Affirms the Marion Superior Court’s order entering final judgment in favor of Linda Williams, Kevin Williams, Melvin Brandenburg and Studio 2000 Inc. on Immense Salon & Spa and Michael Covington’s complaint seeking specific performance of the contract between the parties. Finds Immense Salon & Spa and Coving were the first breaching party. Also finds that the trial court did not err by ordering rescission and declining to order specific performance.
In the Matter of the Termination of the Parent-Child Relationship, O.W., Minor Child, E.S., Mother v. Indiana Department of Child Services (mem. dec.)
Juvenile termination of parental rights. Affirms the termination of mother E.S.’s parental rights to her child O.W. Finds the Knox Superior Court’s determination that termination is in O.W.’s best interests is supported by clear and convincing evidence.