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: TERRANCE L. KINNARD Kinnard Law Office Indianapolis, Indiana

ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE: STEVE CARTER Attorney General of Indiana GEORGE P. SHERMAN Deputy Attorney General Indianapolis, Indiana

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

No. 49A05-0609-CR-530

APPEAL FROM THE MARION SUPERIOR COURT The Honorable Evan Goodman, Judge Cause No. 49F15-0506-FD-99707

July 23, 2007 MEMORANDUM DECISION - NOT FOR PUBLICATION VAIDIK, Judge

Case Summary Earl Moody ("Moody") appeals his conviction for escape as a Class D felony claiming that the trial court erred in denying his motion for a directed verdict because insufficient evidence exists to support a finding that he knowingly or intentionally violated his home detention order. Specifically, he argues that the State failed to prove that he knowingly or intentionally violated his home detention order because the State did not introduce into evidence his actual home detention order. Finding that sufficient evidence exists to show that Moody knowingly or intentionally violated his home detention order, we affirm the judgment of the trial court. 1 Facts and Procedural History In June 2004, Marion Superior Court 4 ordered Moody to home detention. Moody read, initialed, and signed a Marion County Community Corrections Home Detention Contract ("Home Detention Contract") that provided, in pertinent part: 1. YOU SHALL be confined inside (within the walls of your residence: front door to back door) your HOME at all times except when: A. Working or traveling directly to and from approved employment; All employment must have a schedule with a fixed location. State's Ex. 1. Additionally, Moody's Home Detention Contract provided "You were ordered to serve a term of Home Detention under the above stated cause number." Id.
We direct Moody's counsel to Indiana Appellate Rules 50(C) and 51(C) for an explanation on how to properly prepare an Appendix on appeal. Rule 50(C) provides, in pertinent part, "The table of contents shall specifically identify each item contained in the Appendix, including the item's date." Moody's Appendix contains two documents, "State's Motion in Limine" and a "Motion to Fingerprint Defendant," that are not identified in the Table of Contents. Moreover, the Table of Contents references multiple orders, motions, and documents that are not included within the Appendix. Additionally, the Appendix is not numbered. Indiana Appellate Rule 51(C) requires, "All pages of the Appendix shall be numbered at the bottom consecutively, without obscuring the Transcript page numbers, regardless of the number of volumes the Appendix requires."
1

2

On the evening of June 10, 2005, Indianapolis Police Department Officer Scott Wolfe ("Officer Wolfe") observed Moody standing and talking with a group of individuals in front of a house in the 3500 block of North Station Avenue. Officer Wolfe recognized Moody, and after confirming that he did not live in the 3500 block of North Station Avenue and that he was still under a home detention order, arrested Moody. Thereafter, the State charged Moody with Escape as a Class D felony. 2 At trial, the State introduced into evidence the Home Detention Contract but did not introduce the actual home detention order. However, both parties stipulated that "[Moody] was placed on home detention by Marion Superior Court Four . . . and by implication that he was on home detention at the time of this alleged crime." Tr. p. 44. At the close of the State's case-in-chief, counsel for Moody made an oral motion requesting a directed verdict claiming the State failed to prove that he knowingly or intentionally violated his home detention order because the State did not introduce into evidence his home detention order. The trial court denied this motion and, thereafter, the jury found Moody guilty as charged. Moody now appeals. Discussion and Decision Moody contends that the trial court erred in denying his motion for a directed verdict because insufficient evidence exists to show that he knowingly or intentionally violated his home detention order. The denial of a motion for a directed verdict cannot be in error if the evidence is sufficient to support a conviction on appeal. Hibbard v. State, 858 N.E.2d 255 (Ind. Ct. App. 2006). Our standard of review for sufficiency of the

2

Ind. Code

Download Earl Moody v. State of Indiana.pdf

Indiana Law