Opinions May 4, 2022

Court of Appeals of Indiana
Joel Williams, Jr. v. State of Indiana
21A-CR-1581
Criminal. Affirms the denial of Joel Williams Jr.’s motion to dismiss charges of two counts each of rape and criminal deviate conduct, all Class A felonies, 35 years after the incidents occurred. Finds Williams has not proven that he will suffer actual and substantial prejudice to his right to a fair trial.

A.R. v. Review Board of the Indiana Department of Workforce Development, and MBC Group Inc. (mem. dec.)
21A-EX-1976
Agency action. Affirms the Review Board of the Indiana Department of Workforce Development’s decision finding A.R. ineligible for unemployment benefits. Finds the board’s decision was reasonable and supported by substantial evidence.

Jason Eric Meisenholder v. State of Indiana (mem. dec.)
21A-CR-2351
Criminal. Reduces Jason Meisenholder’s conviction for Level 6 felony synthetic identity deception to Class B misdemeanor false informing. Finds that the statute pursuant to which Meisenholder was convicted and sentenced violates the proportionality clause of the Indiana Constitution. Remands with instructions to the Decatur Superior Court to resentence him accordingly and to vacate the habitual offender finding and enhancement.

Amy L. Watterson v. State of Indiana (mem. dec.)
21A-CR-2694
Criminal. Affirms the revocation of Amy Watterson’s probation and the imposition of 120 days of her previously suspended sentence. Finds the Decatur Superior Court did not abuse its discretion by revoking Watterson’s probation and imposing 120 days of her previously suspended sentence.

Kevin Edward Rollins v. State of Indiana (mem. dec.)
21A-CR-2234
Criminal. Affirms Kevin Rollins’ conviction for Level 5 felony battery and his three-year sentence. Finds the Jasper Superior Court properly refused to tender Rollins’ proposed self-defense instruction to the jury. Also finds his three-year sentence, with one year served in community corrections and two years suspended to probation, is not inappropriate in light of the nature of the offense and the character of the offender.

Jesse R. Johns v. State of Indiana (mem. dec.)
21A-CR-2717
Criminal. Affirms the revocation of Jesse Johns’ probation and the imposition of his previously suspended three-year sentence. Finds the Marion Superior Court did not abuse its discretion by revoking Johns’ probation and imposing his previously suspended sentence.

In the Involuntary Termination of the Parent-Child Relationship of K.T. (Minor Child), and C.B. (Mother) and J.T. (Father) v. Indiana Department of Child Services (mem. dec.)
21A-JT-2547
Juvenile termination of parental rights. Affirms the termination of mother C.B. and father J.T.’s parental rights to their child, K.T. Finds that waiver notwithstanding, the parents’ due process rights were not violated when the Scott Superior Court held the termination fact-finding hearing without the parents present. Also finds the trial court’s findings support its conclusion that the involuntary termination of the parents’ parental rights was in the child’s best interests.

In the Involuntary Termination of the Parent-Child Relationship of: A.M. and E.M. (Minor Children), and M.M. (Mother) v. Indiana Department of Child Services (mem. dec.)
21A-JT-2824
Juvenile termination of parental rights. Affirms the involuntary termination of mother M.M.’s parent rights to her children, E.M. and A.M. Finds M.M. has not demonstrated prejudice from the Department of Child Services’ failure to arrange one-on-one therapy with E.M. in order to discuss father S.M.’s sexual abuse of E.M.

W. Keith Asbury v. Mark Duncan (mem. dec.)
21A-MI-2128
Miscellaneous. Affirms the Fountain Circuit Court’s order denying W. Keith Asbury’s motion to set aside the default judgment against him on Mark Duncan’s complaint for damages and the court’s award of compensatory damages and attorney fees to Duncan. Finds Asbury has waived his right to compel arbitration. Also finds the trial court did not err when it calculated the compensatory damages award to Duncan. Finally, finds Duncan was entitled to attorney fees under the Crime Victim Relief Act, and Asbury has not shown that the trial court abused its discretion when it awarded attorney fees.

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 }}