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: AARON MYERS Indianapolis, Indiana .

FILED
Jul 25 2008, 9:58 am
of the supreme court, court of appeals and tax court

CLERK

ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE: STEVE CARTER Attorney General Of Indiana IAN MCLEAN Deputy Attorney General Indianapolis, Indiana

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

No. 49A02-0711-CR-983

APPEAL FROM THE MARION SUPERIOR COURT The Honorable Steven Eichholtz, Judge The Honorable Patrick Murphy, Master Commissioner1 Cause No.49G23-0706-FA-119444

Master Commissioner Patrick Murphy heard this case and signed the abstract of judgment. Indiana Code section 33-33-49-16(e) provides that a "master commissioner shall report the findings in each of the matters before the master commissioner in writing to the judge or judges of the division to which the master commissioner is assigned." However, section 33-33-49-16(e) also provides that master commissioners have the powers prescribed for magistrates pursuant to Indiana Code section 33-23-5-5, including the power to enter a final order, conduct a sentencing hearing, and impose a sentence on a person convicted of a criminal offense. Given the manner in which the statutes defining the powers of these judicial officers have evolved, and in conjunction with the powers specifically granted by section 33-23-5-5, we believe section 33-33-49-16(e) means that the master commissioner has to keep the regular judge apprised regarding the matters before him and not that the regular judge needs to approve by signature actions the master commissioner is authorized by section 33-23-5-5 to take.

1

July 25, 2008

MEMORANDUM DECISION - NOT FOR PUBLICATION

ROBB, Judge Case Summary and Issue Following a bench trial, Ervin Crabtree was convicted of possession of cocaine in an amount greater than three grams within 1,000 feet of a school, a Class A felony. Crabtree appeals his conviction, contending that the trial court erred in admitting cocaine evidence because it was obtained as the result of an illegal detention. Concluding that Crabtree was not subject to an illegal detention because officers had reasonable suspicion to stop him, we affirm. Facts and Procedural History2 On June 22, 2007, several Indianapolis Metropolitan Police Department ("IMPD") officers were looking for Crabtree, the subject of several open warrants. The officers went to a house at 1419 East Marlow Avenue because Crabtree allegedly frequented that address and was suspected of dealing drugs there. The officers had with
The pages of Crabtree's appendix are not numbered as required by Indiana Appellate Rule 51(C) ("All pages of the Appendix shall be numbered at the bottom consecutively . . . ."). Also, Crabtree included in his appendix a copy of the presentence investigation report on white paper. Indiana Appellate Rule 9(J) requires that "[d]ocuments and information excluded from public access pursuant to Ind. Administrative Rule 9(G)(1) shall be filed in accordance with Trial Rule 5(G)." Indiana Administrative Rule 9(G)(1)(b)(viii) states that "[a]ll presentence reports pursuant to Ind. Code

Download Ervin Crabtree v. State of Indiana.pdf

Indiana Law