MEMORANDUM DECISION
FILED
Pursuant to Ind. Appellate Rule 65(D), Oct 18 2018, 7:52 am
this Memorandum Decision shall not be
CLERK
regarded as precedent or cited before any Indiana Supreme Court
Court of Appeals
court except for the purpose of establishing and Tax Court
the defense of res judicata, collateral
estoppel, or the law of the case.
ATTORNEY FOR APPELLANT ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE
Barbara J. Simmons Curtis T. Hill, Jr.
Oldenburg, Indiana Attorney General of Indiana
Ian McLean
Supervising Deputy Attorney
General
Indianapolis, Indiana
IN THE
COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA
Marlon Jackson, October 18, 2018
Appellant-Defendant, Court of Appeals Case No.
18A-CR-825
v. Appeal from the Marion Superior
Court
State of Indiana, The Honorable John Christ,
Appellee-Plaintiff. Magistrate
Trial Court Cause No.
49G14-1603-F6-10184
Robb, Judge.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 18A-CR-825 | October 18, 2018 Page 1 of 5
Case Summary and Issues
[1] Following a bench trial, Marlon Jackson was convicted of possession of
marijuana, a Class B misdemeanor. Jackson presents two issues for our review,
both of which we addressed in detail in Jackson’s prior interlocutory appeal.
See Jackson v. State, No. 49A04-1701-CR-89 (Ind. Ct. App. Aug. 8, 2017).
Having already addressed Jackson’s arguments on interlocutory appeal, we
apply the law of the case doctrine and affirm in all respects.
Facts and Procedural History
[2] Around 10:00 p.m. on the evening of March 13, 2016, Officer Brian Zotz of the
Indianapolis Metropolitan Police Department observed a vehicle driving
backwards on 36th Street in Indianapolis. Officer Zotz assumed that the driver
had missed a turn and watched the vehicle stop at a stop sign before proceeding,
backwards, through the intersection. Concerned about heavy traffic and the
vehicle’s now rear-facing headlights, Officer Zotz initiated a traffic stop.
[3] Officer Zotz exited his vehicle and approached the driver, later identified as
Jackson. During this time, Officer Zotz observed Jackson remove a ball cap
and appear to place it on the floorboard of the vehicle. Officer Zotz made
contact with Jackson and his passenger at the driver’s side window. Officer
Zotz stated Jackson was “leaning hard to his right with his arms and his body
postured toward the center of the vehicle.” Transcript, Volume II at 54.
Jackson told Officer Zotz that a mechanical issue prevented the vehicle from
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 18A-CR-825 | October 18, 2018 Page 2 of 5
driving forward and that he was headed to his home on Rural Avenue,
approximately a mile away.
[4] As Jackson attempted to locate his identification, he opened the vehicle’s center
console. From his vantage point outside the vehicle, Officer Zotz noticed a
digital scale inside the console, which Officer Zotz knew from his prior training
and experience to be commonly associated with the distribution of illegal drugs.
Jackson and his passenger continued to reach around the floorboard area of the
vehicle as Officer Zotz collected the vehicle’s registration. Officer Zotz
returned to his vehicle to run Jackson’s information and requested a back-up
officer who arrived shortly thereafter. Officer Zotz and a second officer
approached Jackson and instructed him to exit the vehicle. Officer Zotz
smelled the odor of raw marijuana on Jackson’s person and subsequently
conducted a pat-down search of Jackson’s outer clothing for weapons. Officer
Zotz returned to the vehicle in order to locate the digital scale and as he lifted
Jackson’s hat from the floorboard, he noticed a small amount of marijuana and
marijuana seeds on the vehicle’s floorboard.
[5] Jackson later admitted that he had marijuana in his pocket and Officer Zotz
conducted a search of Jackson’s person revealing a clear plastic bag containing
what was later confirmed to be 7.13 grams of marijuana. Jackson was arrested
and charged with possession of marijuana, a Class B misdemeanor.
[6] On July 25, 2016, Jackson filed a motion to suppress. After a hearing on
November 3, the trial court denied Jackson’s motion but certified its order for
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 18A-CR-825 | October 18, 2018 Page 3 of 5
interlocutory appeal. This court accepted jurisdiction on February 3, 2017. In
his appeal, Jackson claimed the trial court erred by denying his motion to
suppress as certain evidence was obtained in violation of his rights under the
Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution and Article 1, Section 11
of the Indiana Constitution. In a memorandum decision issued on August 8,
2017, we held Officer Zotz possessed reasonable suspicion under both
constitutional provisions and concluded the trial court properly denied
Jackson’s motion to suppress. Jackson, No. 49A04-1701-CR-89 at *2-4.
[7] The case proceeded to a bench trial on March 20, 2018. The trial court
overruled Jackson’s objections to the admission of the previously challenged
evidence and found Jackson guilty of possession of marijuana, a Class B
misdemeanor. Jackson was sentenced to sixty days in the Marion County Jail
with fifty-two days suspended. Jackson now appeals.
Discussion and Decision
[8] The law of the case doctrine is a discretionary tool. Cutter v. State, 725 N.E.2d
401, 405 (Ind. 2000). The doctrine allows “appellate courts [to] decline to
revisit legal issues already determined on appeal in the same case and on
substantially the same facts[,]” and it may be applied “only to those issues
actually considered and decided on appeal.” Id. (internal quotation marks
omitted). The doctrine exists “to promote finality and judicial economy[,]” id.,
and applies to issues which were decided by an interlocutory appeal when the
same claims are repeated on appeal from a completed trial, Harper v. State, 963
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 18A-CR-825 | October 18, 2018 Page 4 of 5
N.E.2d 653, 658 (Ind. Ct. App. 2012), aff’d on reh’g, 968 N.E.2d 843 (Ind. Ct.
App. 2012), trans. denied.
[9] We considered and decided the issues presented here in Jackson’s prior
interlocutory appeal, holding Officer Zotz possessed reasonable suspicion when
he conducted a traffic stop on Jackson’s vehicle and the trial court therefore did
not err in denying Jackson’s motion to suppress. Jackson, No. 49A04-1701-CR-
89 at *4. Jackson has not presented any new arguments or authority for
reconsideration. Absent “extraordinary circumstances” or a showing the
original decision was “clearly erroneous and would work a manifest
injustice[,]” Leatherwood v. State, 880 N.E.2d 315, 319 (Ind. Ct. App. 2008),
trans. denied, we apply the law of the case doctrine and decline to revisit the
issues presented. Therefore, we affirm in all respects.
Conclusion
[10] Having already considered and decided in Jackson’s prior interlocutory appeal
the issues presented here, we apply the law of the case doctrine and affirm in all
respects.
[11] Affirmed.
Baker, J., and May, J., concur.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 18A-CR-825 | October 18, 2018 Page 5 of 5