But we agree with the State that Beckman has not preserved this issue for appellate review. Discussion and Decision Issue One: Admission of Medical Records Beckman first asserts that the trial court abused its discretion when it admitted Mashburn’s medical records as evidence because those records contained hearsay from Mashburn that he had been cut with a box cutter. The court entered its judgment of conviction accordingly Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 46A03-1510-CR-1773 | J of 7 and sentenced Beckman to an aggregate term of twenty-six years in the Department of Correction. Thereafter, Beckman pleaded guilty to being a habitual offender. A jury found him guilty of battery, as a Level 3 felony. The State charged Beckman, in relevant part, with aggravated battery, as a Level 3 felony, and for being a habitual offender. The lacerations on his head were likely to scar, but the six centimeter long laceration on his face was described by Mashburn’s treating nurse as “ertain” to scar. Mashburn had severe lacerations on his head and face. According to his medical records, Mashburn reported that he had been attacked with a box cutter. Anthony Memorial Hospital in Michigan City. Mashburn was transported to the emergency room at St. The staff member suggested they may have been taken as evidence, to which Beckman responded, “possibly, I tried to cut his head off.” Id. Later, Beckman asked a member of the jail’s staff where his glasses were. The officer who escorted Beckman to the police station asked Beckman if Beckman’s heavy cough was tuberculosis, and Beckman responded that it was not, “unless I caught something when I cut him open.” Tr. Beckman fled the scene when he heard the police cars nearby, but officers apprehended him about ten blocks away shortly thereafter. A neighbor, Lindsey Jankowski, also observed Beckman attacking Mashburn with the box cutter, and she called police and described Beckman to them. Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 46A03-1510-CR-1773 | J of 7 attacking Mashburn with the box cutter and broke up the fight. We interpret that statement to mean that the trial court vacated Beckman’s lesser convictions for battery as alleged in Counts II and III. However, in its sentencing statement, the trial court clarified that the lesser convictions “are hereby merged into the judgment of conviction” for aggravated battery, as a Level 3 felony. Cross, Jr., observed Beckman 1 The jury also found Beckman guilty on two lesser charges of battery, for which the trial court initially entered judgments of conviction. Beckman removed a box cutter from his clothing and used it to attack Mashburn. Following the argument, Beckman confronted Mashburn in an adjacent parking lot. ![]() Facts and Procedural History On March 31, 2015, Beckman got into an argument with Daniel Mashburn, who was seeing a former girlfriend of Beckman’s, at a local church. Whether Beckman preserved for appellate review his argument that the trial court abused its discretion when it admitted the medical records of his victim Whether the trial court abused its discretion when it sentenced Beckman. Whether the State presented sufficient evidence to support Beckman’s conviction and 3. ![]() 1 Beckman raises three issues for our review, which we restate as follows: 1. Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 46A03-1510-CR-1773 | J of 7 Statement of the Case Christopher Beckman appeals his conviction for aggravated battery, as a Level 3 felony, and his sentence following a jury trial. Appeal from the LaPorte Superior Court The Honorable Michael S. Roebel Deputy Attorney General Indianapolis, Indiana IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA Christopher Beckman, JAppellant-Defendant, Court of Appeals Case No. Zoeller Attorney General of Indiana Justin F. Jun 30 2016, 9:41 am CLERK Indiana Supreme Court Court of Appeals and Tax Court ATTORNEY FOR APPELLANT ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE Jennifer L. ![]() ![]() 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. MEMORANDUM DECISION FILED Pursuant to Ind.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |