Jordyn L. Maddox n/k/a Garbison v. State of Indiana ( 2023 )


Menu:
  •                                                                                   FILED
    Aug 07 2023, 9:01 am
    CLERK
    Indiana Supreme Court
    Court of Appeals
    and Tax Court
    ATTORNEY FOR APPELLANT                                     ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE
    Janet Lynn Thompson                                        Theodore E. Rokita
    Hoover Hull Turner LLP                                     Indiana Attorney General
    Indianapolis, Indiana                                      Megan M. Smith
    Deputy Attorney General
    Indianapolis, Indiana
    IN THE
    COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA
    Jordyn L. Maddox,                                          August 7, 2023
    Appellant-Defendant,                                       Court of Appeals Case No.
    23A-CR-327
    v.                                                 Appeal from the Pulaski Superior
    Court
    State of Indiana,                                          The Honorable Crystal A. Kocher,
    Appellee-Plaintiff                                         Judge
    Trial Court Cause No.
    66D01-2112-F6-147
    Opinion by Judge Crone
    Judge Brown and Senior Judge Robb concur.
    Crone, Judge.
    [1]   A jury found Jordyn L. Maddox guilty of possessing methamphetamine, a
    controlled substance, and paraphernalia. On appeal, she challenges the
    constitutionality of the search of her residence and the admissibility of the
    Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 23A-CR-327 | August 7, 2023                               Page 1 of 2
    incriminating evidence seized. At trial, she stated that she had “[n]o objections”
    to the admission of the evidence. Tr. Vol. 2 at 127. Our supreme court has
    stated that “we will not review claims, even for fundamental error, when
    appellants expressly declare at trial that they have no objection.” Taylor v. State,
    
    86 N.E.3d 157
    , 161 (Ind. 2017) (citing Halliburton v. State, 
    1 N.E.3d 670
    , 678-79
    (Ind. 2013)), cert. denied (2018). Accordingly, we will not review Maddox’s
    claims of error and fundamental error, and we affirm her convictions. 1
    [2]   Affirmed.
    Brown, J., and Robb, Sr.J., concur.
    1
    In her reply brief, Maddox urges us to consider her fundamental error claim, citing cases from this Court
    that were decided before Taylor and Halliburton. “As Indiana’s intermediate appellate court, we are bound by
    Indiana Supreme Court precedent and are not at liberty to ‘reconsider’ that precedent.” Hill v. State, 
    122 N.E.3d 979
    , 982 (Ind. Ct. App. 2019) (quoting Minor v. State, 
    36 N.E.3d 1065
    , 1074 (Ind. Ct. App. 2015),
    trans. denied), trans. denied.
    Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 23A-CR-327 | August 7, 2023                                Page 2 of 2
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 23A-CR-00327

Filed Date: 8/7/2023

Precedential Status: Precedential

Modified Date: 11/14/2023