Crosby Rayne Waller v. State of Indiana (mem. dec.)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
MEMORANDUM DECISION 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. FILED Dec 11 2018, 10:23 am CLERK Indiana Supreme Court Court of Appeals and Tax Court ATTORNEY FOR APPELLANT ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE Michael Frischkorn Frischkorn Law LLC Fortville, Indiana Curtis T. Hill, Jr. Attorney General of Indiana Henry A. Flores, Jr. Deputy Attorney General Indianapolis, Indiana IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA Crosby Rayne Waller, December 11, 2018 Appellant/Cross-Appellee-Petitioner, Court of Appeals Case No. 18A-CR-1398 v. State of Indiana, Appellee/Cross-Appellant-Respondent Appeal from the Hamilton Superior Court The Honorable William J. Hughes, Judge Trial Court Cause No. 29D03-1611-F5-8588 Crone, Judge. [1] Crosby Rayne Waller was serving probation after pleading guilty to level 6 felony battery against a public safety officer. The State alleged, and the trial Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 18A-CR-1398 | December 11, 2018 Page 1 of 2 court found, that Waller violated his probation by committing new offenses and taking illegal drugs. The court revoked his probation and executed the remainder of his previously suspended sentence. Waller failed to perfect an appeal within thirty days and sought leave to file a belated appeal pursuant to Indiana Post-Conviction Rule 2, which the trial court granted. He asserts that the trial court abused its discretion in executing the remainder of his previously suspended sentence. The State cross-appeals, to which Waller does not respond, claiming that the trial court erred in granting Waller leave to file a belated appeal and that we must therefore dismiss. Finding the State’s crossappeal issue dispositive, we dismiss. See Dawson v. State, 943 N.E.2d 1281, 1281 (Ind. 2011) (adopting this Court’s analysis that Post-Conviction Rule 2 does not allow belated appeals from orders revoking probation). [2] Dismissed. Vaidik, C.J., and Mathias, J., concur. Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 18A-CR-1398 | December 11, 2018 Page 2 of 2
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
