ILNews

Opinions April 1, 2014

April 1, 2014
Keywords
Back to TopE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

Indiana Supreme Court
Bryant E. Wilson v. State of Indiana
27S02-1309-CR-584
Criminal. Reverses trial court denial of motion to correct erroneous sentence and remands for resentencing. Holds that the Indiana Code does not authorize a sentence to be imposed in part as consecutive and in part as concurrent, and orders Wilson resentenced on a rape conviction for an aggregate term not to exceed 50 years in prison.

Indiana Tax Court
The following opinion was issued after IL deadline Monday.

Tannins of Indianapolis, LLC v. Indiana Department of State Revenue
49T10-1303-SC-45
Tax. Affirms final determination that Tannins’ purchases of tasting cards for the Indianapolis wine bar it operates, Tastings, are not exempt from use tax under Indiana Code § 6-2.5-5-8(b), the purchase for resale exemption.

Indiana Court of Appeals
Michael E. McClellan v. State of Indiana
39A04-1305-CR-248
Criminal. Remands to the trial court to hold a new hearing on McClellan’s motion to dismiss. Rules the state should have the opportunity to rebut the presumption of prejudice that its delay in filing charges impaired McClellan’s defense.   

Jeffery Spinks v. State of Indiana (NFP)
82A01-1307-CR-299
Criminal. Reverses conviction for Class B felony sexual misconduct with a minor as an erroneous conviction for which Spinks was not charged but otherwise affirms convictions of three counts of Class A felony child molesting and one count of Class C felony child molesting. The aggregate sentence of 45 years in prison is affirmed.

Scriptfleet, Inc., a Florida Corporation f/k/a Network Express, Inc. v. In Touch Pharmaceuticals, Inc., an Indiana Corporation as successor in interest to MHP Pharmacy, LLC (NFP)
64A05-1308-PL-393
Civil plenary. Reverses grant of summary judgment in favor of In Touch Pharmaceuticals and remands for proceedings to determine what, if any, contractual obligation InTouch owed to Scriptfleet.

Anthony Taylor v. Mark R. Sevier, Superintendent of Miami Correctional Facility (NFP)
52A04-1306-MI-309
Miscellaneous. Reverses grant of summary disposition in favor of Sevier because the Miami Circuit Court lacked jurisdiction to consider Taylor’s post-conviction relief petition. Remands with instructions to transfer the matter to Miami Superior Court.
 
The Indiana Tax Court issued no opinions prior to IL deadline Tuesday. The 7th Circuit Court of Appeals issued no Indiana opinions prior to IL deadline.
 

ADVERTISEMENT

Sponsored by
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. Paul Ogden doing a fine job of remembering his peer Gary Welsh with the post below and a call for an Indy gettogether to celebrate Gary .... http://www.ogdenonpolitics.com/2016/05/indiana-loses-citizen-journalist-giant.html Castaways of Indiana, unite!

  2. It's unfortunate that someone has attempted to hijack the comments to promote his own business. This is not an article discussing the means of preserving the record; no matter how it's accomplished, ethics and impartiality are paramount concerns. When a party to litigation contracts directly with a reporting firm, it creates, at the very least, the appearance of a conflict of interest. Court reporters, attorneys and judges are officers of the court and must abide by court rules as well as state and federal laws. Parties to litigation have no such ethical responsibilities. Would we accept insurance companies contracting with judges? This practice effectively shifts costs to the party who can least afford it while reducing costs for the party with the most resources. The success of our justice system depends on equal access for all, not just for those who have the deepest pockets.

  3. As a licensed court reporter in California, I have to say that I'm sure that at some point we will be replaced by speech recognition. However, from what I've seen of it so far, it's a lot farther away than three years. It doesn't sound like Mr. Hubbard has ever sat in a courtroom or a deposition room where testimony is being given. Not all procedures are the same, and often they become quite heated with the ends of question and beginning of answers overlapping. The human mind can discern the words to a certain extent in those cases, but I doubt very much that a computer can yet. There is also the issue of very heavy accents and mumbling. People speak very fast nowadays, and in order to do that, they generally slur everything together, they drop or swallow words like "the" and "and." Voice recognition might be able to produce some form of a transcript, but I'd be very surprised if it produces an accurate or verbatim transcript, as is required in the legal world.

  4. Really enjoyed the profile. Congratulations to Craig on living the dream, and kudos to the pros who got involved to help him realize the vision.

  5. Why in the world would someone need a person to correct a transcript when a realtime court reporter could provide them with a transcript (rough draft) immediately?

ADVERTISEMENT