ILNews

Opinions Dec. 20, 2013

December 20, 2013
Keywords
Back to TopE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

7th Circuit Court of Appeals
Michael E. Garcia v. Carolyn W. Colvin
13-2120
Civil. Reverses the Social Security Administration’s denial of disability benefits for Michael E. Garcia, finding that the denial was riddled with error and that the record shows Garcia is among the most seriously disabled applicants for disability the Circuit Court has encountered. Remands to the Social Security Administration for proceedings consistent with the opinion.

Indiana Court of Appeals
Richard E. Simmons v. State of Indiana
55A01-1209-CR-444
Criminal. Affirms convictions of four counts of Class A felony attempted murder, two counts of Class D felony criminal recklessness while armed with a deadly weapon and one count each of Class D felony unlawful use of body armor and Class A misdemeanor possession of marijuana. There was ample evidence to convict Simmons of attempted murder, his jury was adequately instructed on the presumption he was innocent and his consecutive sentences were appropriate. Senior Judge Shepherd concurs in separate opinion.

Stephen Brakie v. State of Indiana
65A05-1304-CR-172
Criminal. Affirms conviction of Class A felony child molesting. There is sufficient evidence to sustain the conviction, and the trial court did not abuse its discretion by rejecting Brakie’s proposed jury instruction regarding the presumption of innocence.

In Re the Marriage of Melanie Davis and Angela Summers
53A01-1305-DR-221
Domestic relation. Reverses dismissal of Davis’ petition to dissolve her marriage with Summers. The parties’ marriage was not automatically voided when the trial court granted Davis’ petition to change her name and birth certificate and be identified as a female instead of a male. Remands for further proceedings.

Ronald Gaines v. State of Indiana
49A04-1303-CR-123
Criminal. Affirms conviction of Class A misdemeanor invasion of privacy. Concludes that the return of service was not testimonial, and its admission did not violate Gaines’s rights under the Confrontation Clause.

Michael E. Zanussi v. State of Indiana
29A05-1304-CR-173
Criminal. Affirms conviction of Class A misdemeanor criminal recklessness. The trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying Zanussi’s continuance nor in admitting letters Zanussi wrote from jail.

Shubham Chopra v. Shena Pendyala (NFP)
03A01-1305-SC-191
Small claim. Affirms judgment in favor of Pendyala on Chopra’s action seeking damages for the diminished value of Chopra’s car following a collision with the car driven by Pendyala.

James Mira v. State of Indiana (NFP)
49A04-1305-CR-245
Criminal. Affirms conviction of Class D felony theft.

Marcus R. Carter v. State of Indiana (NFP)
02A03-1304-CR-126
Criminal. Affirms eight-year sentence for Class C felony forgery.

Usman Alim Khan v. State of Indiana (NFP)
29A02-1306-CR-470
Criminal. Affirms denial of petition for alternative misdemeanor sentencing.

Timothy G. White v. State of Indiana (NFP)
09A04-1203-CR-140
Criminal. Affirms denial of petition for jail time credit.

In the Matter of the Termination of the Parent-Child Relationship of: S.T., Minor Child, T.T., Father v. Indiana Department of Child Services (NFP)
57A03-1304-JT-150
Juvenile. Affirms involuntary termination of parental rights.

Eugene L. Small v. Brandi L. Foster (NFP)
34A04-1306-JP-274
Juvenile. Affirms denial of father’s petition to modify custody.

In the Matter of the Termination of the Parent-Child Relationship of: Q.M. and E.M., Minor Children, B.M., Father v. Indiana Department of Child Services (NFP)
15A04-1303-JT-142
Juvenile. Affirms involuntary termination of parental rights.

Hervey Clanton v. State of Indiana (NFP)
20A05-1304-CR-194
Criminal. Affirms convictions and sentence for two counts of Class A felony dealing cocaine within 1,000 feet of a family housing complex, one count of Class B felony possession of a firearm by a serious violent felon, and three counts of Class C felony neglect of a dependent.

The Indiana Supreme Court and Tax Court posted no opinions by IL deadline.

 

ADVERTISEMENT

Sponsored by
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. Other than a complete lack of any verifiable and valid historical citations to back your wild context-free accusations, you also forget to allege "ate Native American children, ate slave children, ate their own children, and often did it all while using salad forks rather than dinner forks." (gasp)

  2. "So we broke with England for the right to "off" our preborn progeny at will, and allow the processing plant doing the dirty deeds (dirt cheap) to profit on the marketing of those "products of conception." I was completely maleducated on our nation's founding, it would seem. (But I know the ACLU is hard at work to remedy that, too.)" Well, you know, we're just following in the footsteps of our founders who raped women, raped slaves, raped children, maimed immigrants, sold children, stole property, broke promises, broke apart families, killed natives... You know, good God fearing down home Christian folk! :/

  3. Who gives a rats behind about all the fluffy ranking nonsense. What students having to pay off debt need to know is that all schools aren't created equal and students from many schools don't have a snowball's chance of getting a decent paying job straight out of law school. Their lowly ranked lawschool won't tell them that though. When schools start honestly (accurately) reporting *those numbers, things will get interesting real quick, and the looks on student's faces will be priceless!

  4. Whilst it may be true that Judges and Justices enjoy such freedom of time and effort, it certainly does not hold true for the average working person. To say that one must 1) take a day or a half day off work every 3 months, 2) gather a list of information including recent photographs, and 3) set up a time that is convenient for the local sheriff or other such office to complete the registry is more than a bit near-sighted. This may be procedural, and hence, in the near-sighted minds of the court, not 'punishment,' but it is in fact 'punishment.' The local sheriffs probably feel a little punished too by the overwork. Registries serve to punish the offender whilst simultaneously providing the public at large with a false sense of security. The false sense of security is dangerous to the public who may not exercise due diligence by thinking there are no offenders in their locale. In fact, the registry only informs them of those who have been convicted.

  5. Unfortunately, the court doesn't understand the difference between ebidta and adjusted ebidta as they clearly got the ruling wrong based on their misunderstanding

ADVERTISEMENT