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.

FILED
Jun 29 2010, 10:41 am
of the supreme court, court of appeals and tax court

CLERK

ATTORNEY FOR APPELLANT: BRADLEY A. ROZZI Hillis, Hillis, Rozzi & Knight Logansport, Indiana

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA
KATHY HARDESTY, Appellant-Respondent, vs. LARRY VICKERY, Appellee-Petitioner. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )

No. 08A04-1001-PO-117

APPEAL FROM THE CARROLL CIRCUIT COURT The Honorable Donald E. Currie, Judge Cause No. 08C01-0912-PO-73

June 29, 2010

MEMORANDUM DECISION - NOT FOR PUBLICATION

NAJAM, Judge

STATEMENT OF THE CASE Kathy Hardesty appeals the trial courts entry of an Order for Protection ("protective order") against her pursuant to a petition filed by Larry Vickery, pro se.1 Hardesty presents a single issue for our review, namely, whether the evidence is sufficient to support the entry of the protective order. We conclude that there is evidence sufficient to show more than one incident in which Hardesty threatened Vickery or Jennifer Ledbetter, Vickerys wife, and that Ledbetter actually felt threatened. Therefore, we affirm. FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY2 Vickery and Ledbetter live on North Parsonage Street in Yeoman. The side boundary of Vickerys property abuts the rear boundary of Hardestys property. A sixfoot tall wooden fence separates the properties and sits on Vickerys property one foot from the boundary. In the summer of 2009, Vickerys truck sustained damage while parked on his property. One week afterward, while Vickery and Ledbetter were standing outside

discussing the truck damage with a neighbor, Hardesty "just [came] running out there yelling" and said to Vickery, "You fat son of a bitch next time its going to cost you more[.]" Transcript at 20. Vickery and Ledbetter interpreted Hardestys statement to
The record is unclear whether Ledbetter was also a petitioner. Whether or not Ledbetter is listed as a petitioner has no practical impact because she is listed as a person to be protected under the order of protection. The Statement of Facts included argument, which is inappropriate in that part of an appellate brief. Harness v. Schmitt, 924 N.E.2d 162, 169 (Ind. Ct. App. 2010) (citing County Line Towing, Inc. v. Cincinnati Ins. Co., 714 N.E.2d 285, 289 (Ind. Ct. App. 1999), trans. denied). Appellants comments are in large part the kind of "transparent attempt to discredit [appellants] argument" that we disapproved in County Line Towing. We emphasize that the Statement of Facts is only "a vehicle for informing this court." Id.
2 1

2

mean that she had caused the damage to Vickerys truck. The damage to the truck shown in photographs "match[ed] up perfectly" with the ram guard of Hardestys vehicle. Id. On December 1, 2009, Vickery was standing in his yard when he heard Hardesty say loudly from the other side of the fence that she wanted to "blow [Vickerys] legs off" and she "wished she had some type of bomb or landmines to blow [Vickery] up[.]" Id. at 6. Vickery understood that Hardesty was not speaking to him, but she was speaking loud enough for him to hear and named him. Ledbetter was nearby and also heard Hardestys statement. That evening, someone from Hardestys side of the fence shined a "little red dot" on Ledbetters forehead while Ledbetter was in the living room. And Ledbetter stopped walking her dog along the road because Hardesty said she was going to run over Ledbetter and the dog. On December 2, Vickery filed a petition seeking an order of protection against Hardesty. Following an evidentiary hearing, the court granted the petition and entered an order of protection. Hardesty now appeals. DISCUSSION AND DECISION Hardesty contends that the trial court erred when it issued the protective order because the evidence is insufficient to show that she stalked Vickery or Ledbetter. In determining the sufficiency of the evidence on appeal, we neither weigh the evidence nor resolve questions of credibility. See Tons v. Bley, 815 N.E.2d 508, 511 (Ind. Ct. App. 2004). We look only to the evidence of probative value and reasonable inferences that support the trial courts judgment. Id.

3

We observe initially that Vickery has not filed an appellees brief. In such a case, we need not undertake the burden of developing arguments for him. See Splittorff v. Aigner, 908 N.E.2d 669, 671 n.2 (Ind. Ct. App. 2009), trans. denied. Applying a less stringent standard of review, we may reverse the trial court if the appellant establishes prima facie error. Id. The Civil Protection Order Act ("the Act") authorizes "a person who is or has been a victim of domestic . . . violence" to file a petition for an order for protection. Ind. Code

Download Kathy Hardesty v. Larry Vickery.pdf

Indiana Law