Learn About the Law
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
Rolando Marquice CALHOUN, Appellant-Defendant, v. STATE of Indiana, Appellee-Plaintiff.
MEMORANDUM DECISION
Statement of the Case
[1] Rolando Calhoun (“Calhoun”) appeals the following convictions: (a) domestic battery resulting in bodily injury to a pregnant woman, a level 5 felony;1 (b) strangulation, a level 5 felony;2 (c) intimidation, a level 5 felony;3 (d) pointing a firearm, a level 6 felony;4 kidnapping, a level 6 felony;5 and domestic battery, a level 6 felony.6 Due to Calhoun's death, we dismiss his appeal.
[2] We dismiss.
Facts
[3] On September 14, 2017, police responded to a 9-1-1 call concerning an incident at the home of Calhoun and his wife, Ayobami Calhoun (“Ayo”). After speaking with Ayo regarding the events precipitating the 9-1-1 call, the officers arrested Calhoun as he was trying to flee through the garage. On September 18, 2017, the State charged Calhoun with several counts.
[4] Following a bench trial on July 11, 2018, the trial court convicted Calhoun of six counts: (a) domestic battery resulting in bodily injury to a pregnant woman, a level 5 felony; (b) strangulation, a level 5 felony; (c) intimidation, a level 5 felony; (d) pointing a firearm, a level 6 felony; kidnapping, a level 6 felony; and domestic battery, a level 6 felony. The trial court sentenced Calhoun to an aggregate term of three years with all but time served suspended to probation. (Tr. 75). Calhoun subsequently appealed all six of his convictions, challenging the sufficiency of the evidence.
Decision
[5] Pursuant to Indiana Rule of Evidence 201(a)(2)(C), we may judicially notice “the existence of ․ records of a court of this state.” Accordingly, we take judicial notice of the existence of records in the related case between Calhoun and Ayo in Hendricks Superior Court 1 under the cause number 32D01-1809-DC-000524. Specifically, we note the existence of an order dated February 6, 2019, dismissing Ayo's marriage dissolution petition due to Calhoun's death. Likewise, we dismiss the present appeal due to Calhoun's death. See Ind. App. Rule 17 (“The death of the appellant abates a criminal appeal.”).
[6] Dismissed.
FOOTNOTES
1. Ind. Code §§ 35-42-2-1.3(a)(1) and (3).
2. I. C. §§ 35-42-2-9(b) and (c).
3. I. C. §§ 35-45-2-1(a)(2) and (b)(2)(A).
4. I. C. § 35-47-4-3(b).
5. I. C. § 35-45-3-2(a).
6. I. C. §§ 35-42-2-1.3(a)(1) and (b)(1).
Pyle, Judge.
Najam, J., and Altice, J., concur.
Thank you for your feedback!
As the largest network of trusted legal brands, we help firms build authority across the platforms consumers and AI systems rely on most. Our network helps attorneys strengthen visibility, credibility, and preference where legal decisions begin.
Docket No: Court of Appeals Case No. 18A-CR-2044
Decided: June 12, 2019
Court: Court of Appeals of Indiana.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)
Harness the power of our directory with your own profile. Select the button below to sign up.
Learn more about FindLaw’s newsletters, including our terms of use and privacy policy.
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)