Opinions Sept. 24, 2020

Indiana Court of Appeals
Joel Barrozo v. State of Indiana
19A-CR-2037
Criminal. Vacates one of Joel Barrozo’s reckless driving convictions due to double jeopardy grounds. Remands to St. Joseph Superior Court with instructions to vacate one of those convictions and to resentence accordingly. However, affirms his remaining convictions for three counts of Level 5 felony reckless homicide, Class A misdemeanor reckless driving, and one count of Class A misdemeanor leaving the scene of an accident.

Michael Krulewitch v. State of Indiana (mem. dec.)
20A-MI-823
Miscellaneous. Affirms the Marion Superior Court’s order finding that the state had probable cause to seize currency found in Michael Krulewitch’s safety deposit box and turn that currency over to the federal government. Finds that the seizure was lawful and the transfer to the federal government was proper.

In the Matter of the Termination of the Parent-Child Relationship of: K.S. and C.S. (Minor Children) and J.P. (Father) v. The Indiana Department of Child Services and Child Advocates, Inc. (mem. dec.)
20A-JT-320
Juvenile termination. Affirms the termination of J.P.’s parent-child relationship with his children, K.S. and C.S. Finds that the record contains more than enough evidence to support the Marion Superior Court’s conclusion that termination was in the children’s best interests.

George Stephens v. State of Indiana (mem. dec.)
20A-CR-500
Criminal. Affirms George Stephens’ conviction in Marion Superior Court of Class A misdemeanor invasion of privacy. Finds the state presented evidence of probative value from which a reasonable trier of fact could have found that Stephens knowingly violated the no contact order, and his arguments amount to an invitation to reweigh the evidence.

James N. Harris, II v. State of Indiana (mem. dec.)
20A-CR-870
Criminal. Affirms the denial in Wayne Superior Court of James Harris II’s motion to suppress the evidence recovered during a residential search. Finds Harris did not have a reasonable expectation of privacy under the circumstances and therefore lacked standing to challenge the constitutionality of the search pursuant to the Fourth Amendment.

Please enable JavaScript to view this content.

{{ articles_remaining }}
Free {{ article_text }} Remaining
{{ articles_remaining }}
Free {{ article_text }} Remaining Article limit resets in {{ count_down }} days.