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: KATHLEEN M. SWEENEY Indianapolis, Indiana

FILED
Aug 29 2011, 9:05 am
of the supreme court, court of appeals and tax court

CLERK

ATTORNEY FOR APPELLEE: JOHN Z. HUANG Indianapolis, Indiana

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA
DAVID NEWTON, Appellant-Petitioner, vs. STATE OF INDIANA, Appellee-Respondent. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )

No. 49A02-1101-CR-10

APPEAL FROM THE MARION SUPERIOR COURT The Honorable Lisa F. Borges, Judge The Honorable Stanley E. Kroh, Commissioner Cause No. 49G04-0802-FC-48714

August 29, 2011

MEMORANDUM DECISION - NOT FOR PUBLICATION

BROWN, Judge

David Newton appeals the denial of his motion for expungement. Newton raises two issues, which we revise and restate as whether the trial court abused its discretion in denying his motion for expungement. We affirm. The relevant facts follow. On February 29, 2008, the State filed a probable cause affidavit and an Information charging Newton with one count of child molesting as a class C felony.1 The probable cause affidavit stated that Newton was L.C.`s stepfather and described three incidents involving Newton and L.C., who was born on April 5, 1997, one in which Newton said Oh my God what is this? and held his penis in his hand and showed it to L.C.; the second in which Newton walked into L.C.`s bathroom while she was taking a shower, scolded her for not closing the door all the way, and then stood there looking at her for approximately 5 minutes while she continued to shower; and the third in which Newton, after helping L.C. slice pizza and while her mother was upstairs asleep, grabbed L.C.`s vagina on the outside of her clothes, held onto it for a short period of time, and asked her do you have a problem with that? Appellant`s Appendix at 25-26. On March 30, 2009, the State filed a motion to dismiss which noted the following reasons for dismissal: . . . Evidentiary Problems. Id. at 30. The court granted the motion to dismiss.

The charging information cited Ind. Code

Download David Newton v. State of Indiana.pdf

Indiana Law