Opinions Dec. 27, 2022

Keywords Opinions

Court of Appeals of Indiana
John C. Miller v. State of Indiana
22A-CR-1055
Criminal. Affirms John C. Miller’s convictions of Level 4 felony possession of methamphetamine and Class C misdemeanor possession of paraphernalia. Finds Whitley Circuit Court did not abuse its discretion when it admitted evidence recovered during a pat-down search of Miller. Finds the pat-down search was supported by reasonable suspicion and thus did not violate Miller’s Fourth Amendment rights.

Noblesville, Indiana Board of Zoning Appeals v. FMG Indianapolis, LLC d/b/a Reagan Outdoor Advertising
21A-PL-2482
Civil Plenary. Reverses Hamilton Superior Court order reversing the city of Noblesville Board of Zoning Appeals’ affirmance of a stop work order and notice of violation issued by FMG Indianapolis, LLC d/b/a Reagan Outdoor Advertising. Finds Reagan did not establish the invalidity of the NBZA order.

In the Matter of the Involuntary Termination of the Parent-Child Relationship of: K.H. (Minor Child) and S.K. (Mother) v. Indiana Department of Child Services (mem. dec.)
22A-JT-1835
Juvenile termination of parental rights. Affirms the termination of parental rights of S.K. to her child K.H. Finds the Department of Child Services presented sufficient evidence to establish the requisite statutory elements. Finds the order terminating the mother’s parental rights is not clearly erroneous.

In the Matter of the Involuntary Termination of the Parent-Child Relationship of: C.N.W. (Minor Child), and C.W. (Mother) v. Indiana Department of Child Services (mem. dec.)
22A-JT-1256
Juvenile termination of parental rights. Affirms C.W.’s termination of parental rights to her child C.N.W. Finds that the termination of the mother’s parental rights over C.N.W. was in the child’s best interests. Concludes the trial court did not err.

A.A. v. State of Indiana (mem. dec.)
22A-JV-1331
Juvenile. Affirms A.A.’s re-commitment to the Department of Correction. Finds A.A.’s pattern of behavior, which is “self-destructive and disruptive to the community and his family,” indicates he should be placed back in the DOC. Concludes the juvenile court did not abuse its discretion.

Chad Aaron Farmer v. State of Indiana (mem. dec.)
22A-CR-1048
Criminal. Affirms Chad Farmer’s conviction of murder. Finds the evidence sustains his conviction.

Joseph Jerral Adkins v. State of Indiana (mem. dec.)
22A-CR-1317
Criminal. Affirms Joseph Jerral Adkins’ conviction for Level 6 felony neglect of a dependent. Finds the evidence of probative value, a photograph, was admitted from which a reasonable jury could find beyond a reasonable doubt that Adkins committed neglect of a dependent.

Levi A. Lord v. State of Indiana (mem. dec.)
22A-CR-1755
Criminal. Affirms Levi A. Lord’s conviction of Level 1 felony child molesting. Finds the trial court didn’t abuse its discretion in admitting the testimony of a forensic nurse relating to statements made by the victim during her medical examination. Finds the evidence is sufficient to sustain his conviction.

Charles B. Douglas v. State of Indiana (mem. dec.)
22A-CR-971
Criminal. Affirms Charles B. Douglas’ conviction of murder. Finds St. Joseph Superior Court did not abuse its discretion in declining to give a reckless homicide instruction. Finds the evidence supports the conviction.

Bradley A. Marshall v. State of Indiana (mem. dec.)
22A-CR-1600
Criminal. Affirms Bradley Adam Marshall’s conviction for Level 5 felony child seduction. Finds the evidence shows that M.H. was under 18 years old at the time of the incidents as required for the lesser felony and the evidence is sufficient to support Marshall’s conviction.

Rosen Kaptiev v. Silviya Boycheva (formerly Kaptiev) (mem. dec.)
22A-DC-667
Domestic relations with children.  Affirms the Johnson Superior Court’s judgment dividing assets and custody of their children between Rosen Kaptiev and Silviya Boycheva after their divorce. Finds the trial didn’t err when it entered a final judgment that valued and divided the couple’s property, awarded custody of their two children to Silviya, ordered Rosen to pay child support, declined to hold Silviya in contempt for selling the marital home, and rejected Rosen’s request that his ex-wife pay his attorney fees. Concludes the trial court didn’t abuse its discretion.

Please enable JavaScript to view this content.

{{ articles_remaining }}
Free {{ article_text }} Remaining
{{ articles_remaining }}
Free {{ article_text }} Remaining Article limit resets on
{{ count_down }}