Preview:

Pursuant to Ind. Appellate Rule 65(D), this Memorandum Decision shall not be regarded as precedent or cited before any court except for the purpose of establishing the defense of res judicata, collateral estoppel, or the law of the case. ATTORNEY FOR APPELLANT: LEANNA WEISSMANN Lawrenceburg, Indiana ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE: GREGORY F. ZOELLER Attorney General of Indiana KATHERINE M. COOPER Deputy Attorney General Indianapolis, Indiana

FILED
of the supreme court, court of appeals and tax court

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA
AIMEE COTTON, Appellant- Defendant, vs. STATE OF INDIANA, Appellee- Plaintiff, ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )

Aug 31 2011, 9:50 am

CLERK

No. 15A05-1101-CR-30

APPEAL FROM THE DEARBORN SUPERIOR COURT The Honorable Sally Blankenship, Judge Cause No. 15D02-0909-FD-179

August 31, 2011

MEMORANDUM DECISION - NOT FOR PUBLICATION

ROBB, Chief Judge

Case Summary and Issue Aimee Cotton1 appeals her conviction of neglect of a dependent, a Class D felony. Cotton raises one issue for our review, which we restate as whether sufficient evidence supports the jury's finding that Cotton committed neglect of a dependent by depriving a dependent of education as required by law. Concluding the evidence is sufficient, we affirm. Facts and Procedural History Cotton is a single mother of S.S. and five other children, three of whom have special needs. Between 2007 and 2009, S.S. attended fifth and sixth grade at Aurora Elementary School in Dearborn County. During those years, S.S. exhibited attendance problems at school. S.S. was absent nineteen days during her fifth grade year, most of which were unexcused and occurred in the spring semester, and she was absent thirtyeight and one-half days during her sixth grade year, twenty-two and one-half of which were unexcused. Further, in the first semester of her seventh grade year, S.S.

accumulated many more absences, ten of which were unexcused. The school attendance counselor sent multiple letters to Cotton and called her to discuss S.S.'s poor attendance. Cotton's only response came when she informed the attendance counselor that S.S.'s absences were the result of S.S. suffering from cramps, an explanation that had no accompanying medical documentation. During this time, S.S.'s grades suffered. In fifth grade, during the fall semester, S.S. received all "A" and "B" grades. In the spring semester, coinciding with her increase

We note that there is some confusion in the record and briefs regarding the spelling of the Appellant's first name. For the sake of consistency, we have used the version contained on our docket.

1

2

in absences, S.S. received a "D" for a grading term and a "D+" for a semester in social studies. S.S. also received several "C" grades in the spring semester. S.S.'s grades suffered even more substantially during her sixth grade year, when she received several "F" grades in English and reading, an "F" and two "D" grades in social studies, and several "D" grades in math. Despite her absences and grades, S.S. was "assigned" to seventh grade at the end of her sixth grade year.2 While S.S.'s grades may have suffered during this time, her standardized test scores on the Indiana Statewide Testing for Educational Progress ("ISTEP") exam were above passing, and her scores on an evaluative test, produced by the Northwest Evaluation Association ("NWEA"), placed her yearly growth well above average. However, her performance on each declined as time went on from the fall of 2007 to the spring of 2009. Two referrals were sent to the Dearborn Circuit Court's probation department during the relevant school years, notifying them of S.S.'s high number of absences. Near the end of S.S.'s fifth grade year, the probation department sent Cotton a letter notifying her that if S.S. continued to be absent without excuse, an investigation would commence to determine if charges for truancy or neglect of a dependent should be filed against S.S. or Cotton, respectively. Cotton failed to respond to the probation department's letter, a nd the case was turned over to the Aurora Police Department for further investigation. The State ultimately charged Cotton with neglect of a dependent, a Class D felony. A jury found Cotton guilty of neglect of a dependent and the trial court sentenced her to
Aurora Elementary School grade reports show three potential outcomes for a student at the end of an academic year. He or she can be promoted, retained, or assigned. While the evidence is unclear, it appears that a child moves on to the next grade if he or she is either promoted or assigned, but being promoted is more satisfactory than being assigned. See State's Exhibit 4 at 2.
2

3

three years imprisonment, all of which was suspended, and three years probation. Upon the successful completion of all probation requirements, Cotton will be eligible to have the sentence converted to a Class A misdemeanor. Cotton now appeals her conviction. Discussion and Decision I. Standard of Review Our standard for reviewing a sufficiency claim is well-settled: When reviewing the sufficiency of the evidence to support a conviction, appellate courts must consider only the probative evidence and reasonable inferences supporting the verdict. It is the fact-finder's role, not that of appellate courts, to assess witness credibility and weigh the evidence to determine whether it is sufficient to support a conviction. To preserve this structure, when appellate courts are confronted with conflicting evidence, they must consider it most favorably to the trial court's ruling. Appellate courts affirm the conviction unless no reasonable fact-finder could find the elements of the crime proven beyond a reasonable doubt. It is therefore not necessary that the evidence overcome every reasonable hypothesis of innocence. The evidence is sufficient if an inference may reasonably be drawn from it to support the verdict. Drane v. State, 867 N.E.2d 144, 146-47 (Ind. 2007) (quotations, citations, and footnote omitted) (emphasis in original). II. Neglect of a Dependent To convict Cotton of educational neglect of a dependent, the State must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Cotton, having the care of a dependent, knowingly or intentionally deprived the dependent of education as required by law. Ind. Code

Download Aimee Cotton v. State of Indiana.pdf

Indiana Law