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
Steven E. Malloch v. State of Indiana
22A-PC-2053
Post-conviction relief. Affirms the DeKalb Superior Court’s denial of Steven Malloch’s petition for post-conviction relief. Finds Malloch’s trial attorney, John Bohdan, did not perform deficiently by not calling an expert witness about false confessions at Malloch’s trial because he pursued other strategies calculated to sow doubt regarding the veracity of Malloch’s confession. Also finds Bohdan didn’t perform deficiently when he did not call a sleep expert who could not provide an opinion supportive of Malloch or a sleep expert who would have been a reluctant and equivocal witness at best.
L.R. b/n/f H.R. v. M.H. b/n/f N.H.
23A-PO-366
Protective order. Reverses the Monroe Circuit Court’s entry of a protective order against L.R. Finds a reasonable person would not have felt terrorized, frightened, intimidated or threatened by L.R.’s four contacts with M.H. in four months, and M.H. testified to not feeling physically threatened.
Michael Dumdey v. State of Indiana (mem. dec.)
23A-CR-284
Criminal. Affirms Michael L. Dumdey’s convictions of two counts of Level 1 felony child molesting, three counts of Level 4 felony child molesting and eight counts of Level 5 felony child pornography, and his 35-year sentence. Finds Dumdey’s convictions were supported by sufficient evidence. Also finds his sentence is not inappropriate in light of his character and his 13 offenses.
In Re: The Termination of the Parent-Child Relationship of M.H. and N.H. (Minor Children); L.G. (Mother) and A.H. (Father) v. The Indiana Department of Child Services (mem. dec.)
23A-JT-1029
Juvenile termination of parental rights. Affirms the termination of mother L.G. and father A.H.’s parent-child relationships with their two children. Finds there is sufficient evidence to support the terminations.
Roland O. Ward v. State of Indiana (mem. dec.)
23A-CR-1143
Criminal. Affirms the denial of Roland O. Ward’s motion to correct erroneous sentence. Finds a motion to correct erroneous sentence is limited to correcting sentencing errors apparent on the face of the judgment but Ward raised an issue outside that context, so the Monroe Circuit Court did not abuse its discretion.
Please enable JavaScript to view this content.