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: MICHAEL S. GREENE Elkhart, Indiana

ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE: STEVE CARTER Attorney General of Indiana GARY DAMON SECREST Deputy Attorney General Indianapolis, Indiana

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA
MARLON M. BANKS, Appellant-Defendant, vs. STATE OF INDIANA, Appellee-Plaintiff. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )

No. 20A03-0609-CR-442

APPEAL FROM THE ELKHART SUPERIOR COURT The Honorable David C. Bonfiglio, Judge Cause No. 20D02-0504-FC-68

May 17, 2007

MEMORANDUM DECISION - NOT FOR PUBLICATION

CRONE, Judge

Case Summary Marlon M. Banks appeals his sentence for twelve forgery convictions. We affirm. Issue Banks raises one issue, which we restate as whether the trial court erred in finding that the twelve counts of forgery for which he was charged and convicted constituted five episodes of criminal conduct. 1 Facts and Procedural History Between March 12, 2002, and October 23, 2003, Banks used his computer to print fake payroll checks using various actual and phony company names. Banks made the fake checks out to different individuals whom he had recruited and who received a monetary payment and sometimes drugs in return for cashing the fake checks. The individuals had no knowledge of each other, and on only a few occasions were the checks cashed at the same institution. On April 1, 2005, the State charged Banks with twelve counts of class C felony forgery. 2 Appellant's App. at 22. Counts 1-5 related to five checks that were made out to Max House in amounts ranging from $300 to $457 that were cashed on March 13, 2002,

Banks filed a pro se reply brief. This Court's docket, however, does not show that Banks' attorney has withdrawn his appearance. Banks is represented by counsel, and he does not have the right to hybrid representation. See Underwood v. State, 722 N.E.2d 828, 832 (Ind. 2000) (stating that trial court is not required to respond to both defendant and his or her counsel because defendant is not entitled to hybrid representation). We therefore decline to address his pro se reply brief. See Snover v. State, 837 N.E.2d 1042, 1045 n.3 (Ind. Ct. App. 2005) (declining to address defendant's pro se motion for sentence transcripts).
2

1

Ind. Code

Download Marlon M. Banks v. State of Indiana.pdf

Indiana Law