MADDOX v. STATE (2023)

[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 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 ––– U.S. ––––, 139 S.Ct. 591, 202 L.Ed.2d 427 (2018). Accordingly, we will not review Maddox's claims of error and fundamental error, and we affirm her convictions.¹

[2] Affirmed.

FOOTNOTES

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.

Crone, Judge.

Brown, J., and Robb, Sr.J., concur.