ILNews

Opinions March 21, 2013

March 21, 2013
Keywords
Back to TopE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

Indiana Supreme Court
Anthony D. Dye v. State of Indiana
20S04-1201-CR-5
Criminal. On rehearing, reaffirms that a person convicted of unlawful possession of a firearm by a serious violent felon may not have his or her sentence enhanced under the general habitual offender statute by proof of the same felony used to establish that the person was a “serious violent felon.” The state is not permitted to support Dye’s habitual offender finding with a conviction that arose out of the same res gestae that was the source of the conviction used to prove Dye was a serious violent felon. Affirms original opinion in all other respects. Justice Massa concurs in part and dissents in part with separate opinion.

Todd J. Crider v. State of Indiana
91S05-1206-CR-306
Criminal. Reverses in part the sentencing order that Crider’s habitual offender enhancement in a White County case be served consecutively to the habitual offender enhancement in a case from Tippecanoe County. Concludes that the waiver of the right to appeal contained in the plea agreement is unenforceable where the sentence imposed is contrary to law and the defendant did not bargain for the sentence.

Indiana Court of Appeals
Clark County Board of Aviation Commissioners v. Dennis Dreyer and Margo Dreyer as Co-Personal Representatives of the Estate of Margaret A. Dreyer
10A01-1206-PL-288
Civil plenary. Affirms denial of the Board of Aviation Commissioners’ Trial Rule 60(B) motion for partial relief from an $865,000 judgment in favor of Margaret Dreyer after the board instituted eminent domain proceedings. Because legal error may not be collaterally attacked, and the commissioners did not object to Dreyer’s July 2009 objections and did not raise the issue in the first appeal, the trial court did not err by denying their Trial Rule 60(B) motion.

Town of Cedar Lake v. Gina Alessia, Candi Reiling, Andrew Balkema, Individually and as Members of the Town of Cedar Lake Park Board
45A03-1207-PL-316
Civil plenary. Reverses summary judgment for the park board members on their claims of illegal termination, declaratory judgment on the validity of the ordinance and injunctive relief. Also reverses the reinstatement order regarding the park board members. The trial court erred when it used Dillon’s Rule to determine the scope of the town’s legal authority to dissolve the park board and Parks Department. The proper legal inquiry is based on Indiana’s Home Rule Act. Affirms the order that the law firm Austgen Kuiper & Associates P.C. may not continue to represent the park board and its members in any matters based on a current conflict of interest.

C.B. v. B.W.
49A02-1206-JP-539
Juvenile. Affirms order granting the father’s request to change the surname of C.D.B. in initial paternity proceedings over the mother’s objections. The trial court’s decision is not clearly against the logic and effect of the facts and circumstances before the court or contrary to law. The mother has not shown reversible error.

Marquis Shipp v. State of Indiana (NFP)
49A02-1204-PC-322
Post conviction. Affirms denial of petition for post-conviction relief.

Arturo Fuentes v. State of Indiana (NFP)
79A02-1208-CR-698
Criminal. Affirms sentence for Class A felony dealing in cocaine and Class C felony possession of cocaine.

Christina J. Epps v. State of Indiana (NFP)
05A02-1207-CR-673
Criminal. Affirms convictions and sentence for two counts of Class A misdemeanor battery and one count of Class B misdemeanor battery.

The Indiana Tax Court posted no decisions by IL deadline. The 7th Circuit Court of Appeals posted no Indiana decisions by IL deadline.

 

ADVERTISEMENT

Sponsored by
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. CCHP's real accomplishment is the 2015 law signed by Gov Pence that basically outlaws any annexation that is forced where a 65% majority of landowners in the affected area disagree. Regardless of whether HP wins or loses, the citizens of Indiana will not have another fiasco like this. The law Gov Pence signed is a direct result of this malgovernance.

  2. I gave tempparry guardship to a friend of my granddaughter in 2012. I went to prison. I had custody. My daughter went to prison to. We are out. My daughter gave me custody but can get her back. She was not order to give me custody . but now we want granddaughter back from friend. She's 14 now. What rights do we have

  3. This sure is not what most who value good governance consider the Rule of Law to entail: "In a letter dated March 2, which Brizzi forwarded to IBJ, the commission dismissed the grievance “on grounds that there is not reasonable cause to believe that you are guilty of misconduct.”" Yet two month later reasonable cause does exist? (Or is the commission forging ahead, the need for reasonable belief be damned? -- A seeming violation of the Rules of Profession Ethics on the part of the commission) Could the rule of law theory cause one to believe that an explanation is in order? Could it be that Hoosier attorneys live under Imperial Law (which is also a t-word that rhymes with infamy) in which the Platonic guardians can do no wrong and never owe the plebeian class any explanation for their powerful actions. (Might makes it right?) Could this be a case of politics directing the commission, as celebrated IU Mauer Professor (the late) Patrick Baude warned was happening 20 years ago in his controversial (whisteblowing) ethics lecture on a quite similar topic: http://www.repository.law.indiana.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1498&context=ilj

  4. I have a case presently pending cert review before the SCOTUS that reveals just how Indiana regulates the bar. I have been denied licensure for life for holding the wrong views and questioning the grand inquisitors as to their duties as to state and federal constitutional due process. True story: https://www.scribd.com/doc/299040839/2016Petitionforcert-to-SCOTUS Shorter, Amici brief serving to frame issue as misuse of govt licensure: https://www.scribd.com/doc/312841269/Thomas-More-Society-Amicus-Brown-v-Ind-Bd-of-Law-Examiners

  5. Here's an idea...how about we MORE heavily regulate the law schools to reduce the surplus of graduates, driving starting salaries up for those new grads, so that we can all pay our insane amount of student loans off in a reasonable amount of time and then be able to afford to do pro bono & low-fee work? I've got friends in other industries, radiology for example, and their schools accept a very limited number of students so there will never be a glut of new grads and everyone's pay stays high. For example, my radiologist friend's school accepted just six new students per year.

ADVERTISEMENT