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: HILARY BOWE RICKS Indianapolis, Indiana

ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE: GREGORY F. ZOELLER Attorney General of Indiana ZACHARY J. STOCK Deputy Attorney General KYLE CASSIDY Law Clerk Indianapolis, Indiana

FILED
Jul 20 2009, 10:28 am
of the supreme court, court of appeals and tax court

CLERK

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

No. 49A04-0812-CR-704

APPEAL FROM THE MARION SUPERIOR COURT The Honorable Reuben B. Hill, Judge The Honorable Stanley E. Kroh, Commissioner Cause No. 49F18-0807-FD-165087

July 20, 2009 MEMORANDUM DECISION - NOT FOR PUBLICATION KIRSCH, Judge

Michael Casey was convicted after a jury trial of criminal recklessness1 as a Class D felony and admitted to being an habitual offender2 in exchange for a reduced sentence on the enhancement. He was eventually sentenced to three years for his criminal

recklessness conviction enhanced by two years on his habitual offender admission for a total executed sentence of five years. Casey appeals, raising the following restated issues: I. Whether sufficient evidence was presented to support his conviction for criminal recklessness as a Class D felony; and Whether Casey's sentence for criminal recklessness was inappropriate in light of the nature of the offense and the character of the offender.

II.

We affirm. FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY On July 10, 2008, Woody Pollack had volunteered to cut his neighbor's grass, and as he was doing so, he observed a woman entering and exiting several cars in the area. Believing she was a prostitute soliciting business in the neighborhood, Pollack, a member of the local Neighborhood Watch, told the woman to leave the area. After a brief exchange, she left and walked north up the street. Pollack then continued to cut his neighbor's grass by using a weed-whacker to trim the weeds. Soon thereafter, Pollack saw some movement in his peripheral vision and turned to see Casey quickly approaching him and yelling angrily. When Casey saw the weed-

1

See Ind. Code

Download Michael Casey v. State of Indiana.pdf

Indiana Law