Estes v. State
656 N.E.2d 528
Ind. Ct. App.
1995
Check Treatment

*1 errors, proceeding sional the result of the A

would have been different.

probability probability sufficient to un- confidence in the outcome." Strick-

dermine

land, 695, at 104 S.Ct. at 2068 U.S. deleted).

{emphases

It has been further held that: serutiny perfor- of counsel's

"[JlJludicial highly

mance is deferential. should not by second-guessing

be exercised counsel's learning they not

actions after have pre- appropriate. strong There is a

sumption that counsel's assistance fell norms, prevailing professional appellant required present strong convincing evidence to rebut Moreover,

sumption. showing of inex-

perience, poor isolated incidents strate-

gy, necessarily or bad tactics does not

establish ineffective assistance of counsel." Ind.App.,

Bradford 802, 803-04, trans. N.E.2d denied. rejected

Because we have Madden's claims jury improper communication and violation jeopardy protections,

of double Madden sus- prejudice

tained no as a result of counsel's issues,

failure raise such and Madden's

assertions that he received ineffective assis-

tance of counsel must fail.

Affirmed. DARDEN, JJ.,

FRIEDLANDER and Jr., Menges, County. William C. Howard concur. Defender, Kokomo, Public Carter, Attorney Pamela General Indiana, Black, Deputy Attorney Preston W. General, Indianapolis, appellee. ESTES, Appellant-Defendant, Vincent BAKER, Judge. Indiana, Appellee-Plaintiff. STATE of Appellant-defendant Vincent D. Estes con No. 34A02-9505-CR-241. Operating tests his conviction for a Vehicle with a I or II Schedule Controlled Substance 1, in the Blood a Class C misdemeanor. judgment

The facts most favorable to the 15, 1994, reveal that on November Howard 9-30-5-1(b). *2 529 Gregory Hargrove having the defendant's conviction for a County Deputy Sheriff's I II Schedule or controlled substance in the vehicle, Estes, by yellow driven a observed Moore, blood. Id. at 8. As in the State and sharp a turn onto State Road 31 make present that failed evidence Estes had a Deputy Hargrove followed run off the road. in his travelling at an erratic controlled substance blood.3 Suceinet the vehicle which stated, ly positive urine crossing the test is insuffi speed repeatedly the rate of marijuana prove cient to that Estes had Har- Deputy of the road. After centerline his blood.4 vehicle, a stopped the he detected grove marijuana emanating from the strong odor of Judgment reversed. eyes that Estes' were

vehicle and noted KIRSCH, J., concurs. Hargrove in glassy Deputy and bloodshot. Implied Estes of Indiana's Consent formed J., CHEZEM, separate dissents with agreed to a test. Law2 and Estes take urine opinion. of the test revealed that Estes The results CHEZEM, Judge, dissenting. marijuana metabolites his urine. respectfully majority I dissent. The states charged operating Estes with a The State marijuana positive that a urine test is I II controlled vehicle with a Schedule or a insufficient to that defendant had Following in his blood. a bench substance disagree. I his blood. trial, charged, court convicted Estes as the chemical, any fact that days imprisonment sentenced him to 60 with inhalation, body through ingestion, enters the days suspended, placed proba- him on method, any application, dermal or other tion. stream, first into the blood absorbed then (usually by kidneys), metabolized the liver or AND DISCUSSION DECISION and then exereted in the feees or urine. Estes claims that the evidence is Doull, & John Louise J. Casarett Casarett to sustain his conviction because insufficient Toxicology: The and Doull's Basic Science of present any the failed to evidence State (Curtis Klaasen, Ph.D. et al. Poisons 38 showing that had a controlled substance in he 1986). eds, 3d ed. reviewing sufficiency his blood. In the of the majority The relies on Moore v. State evidence, reweigh neither the evidence we There, Ind.App., 645 N.E.2d 6. the judge credibility nor of witnesses. Green given urine defendant was test after the (1992),Ind., 587 N.E.2d 1315. car; arresting officer found in the Instead, only the evidence most we consider However, positive. he tested the First Dis- any favorable to the verdict and trict of this Court reversed Moore's convic- to be drawn therefrom. Id. If an inferences holding insufficient tion that there was evi- reasonably tending inference marijuana in his dence that Moore had blood. evidence, drawn from the verdict be agree holding for I do not with that two will not be set aside. conviction First, reasons. Moore admitted to the ar- (1994), Ind.App., In Moore v. State smoking resting officer that he had been 6, we the exact issue 645 N.E.2d addressed marijuana. pharmacological The effects Moore, In presented in this case. we held marijuana begin minutes of inhalation. although was detected in the Pharmacological that Goodman and Gilman's The (Alfred urine, Therapeutics this was not sufficient defendant's Basis of Goodman 1990). eds, Therefore, prove that the defendant had et al. 8th ed. Gilman test, blood, thus, the urine Moore's admis- compelled we were to reverse even without by attempt persuaded the State's 4. We are not 9-30-6-1. distinguish grounds that in the Moore on the Although acknowledge we the existence of the is additional evidence of Estes' case there by suggest which authorities cited dissent impairment. the other evidence None of marijuana is detected in an individu- that when proves the State that Estes had mari- sented necessarily present in that individ- al's urine it is juana in his blood. blood, no such evidence was tendered to the ual's point the evidence trial court. It is on this fails. smoking sion that he prove that he had

was sufficient to Second, in Moore Court blood. blood test was admin- that because no

stated Moore testified that he

istered and because *3 earlier, days three had smoked longer that he no possible

was blood, yet de-

in he still his contrary This is in his urine.

tectable use, marijuana and science. After plasma in for sev- persist

its metabolites weeks; during days up to several

eral time it is detectable the urine.

this

Thus, only if evidence was that even days three

Moore had smoked

earlier, of the detection presence of

urine was sufficient

marijuana in his blood. courts have an obli-

I believe that Indiana judicial commonly of

gation to take notice facts. The trial court here

known medical

implicitly did such. positive for

Estes tested Therefore, marijuana

urine. Sparks Richey Drake Parr Carol Obrems- his blood. The evidence was sufficient Morton, Lebanon, key conviction, & and I would affirm the trial court. Sanders, Stephen Schrumpf, McNeely, E. Shelbyville,

Stephenson Thopy, appel- & lees.

In re the Matter of the GUARDIANSHIP ROBERTSON, Judge. Stacey Koors, KOORS, OF Steven Koors, Stacey guardian her ad minor, Koors, and Shane Minors. litem, Urdal, appeals Ronald T. the trial $50,000.00 URDAL, judgment distributing T. as Ad court's

Ronald Guardian Stacey Koors, Appellant Litem for proceeds paid upon life insurance the death (Guardian Below), Ad Litem father, Stacey's Jeff Koors to the [Father] guardian Stacey and her two brothers for of all three children. The sole the benefit STEELE, and Bertha Ben Guardians appeal on is: issue Stacey Koors, the Persons of Steven ordering the trial court erred in Koors, Koors, and Shane and National proceeds paid the life insurance to be City Bank, the Estates of Guardian of children, guardian of the three Koors Stacey Koors, Koors Steven Shane (Guardians Below). notwithstanding the fact that the decedent Koors, Appellees, holder, Father, Stacey policy had named as No. 21A01-9503-CV-87. beneficiary policy. under the the sole reverse. We

FACTS undisputed: The facts are the case was agreed court state- submitted to the on