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. Indiana's seatbelt law is not punishable as a crime. It is an infraction. Apparently some of our Circuit judges have deemed settled law inapplicable if it fails to fit their litmus test of political correctness. Extrapolating to redefine terms of behavior in a violation of immigration law to the entire body of criminal law leaves a smorgasbord of opportunity for judicial mischief.

  2. I wonder if $10 diversions for failure to wear seat belts are considered moral turpitude in federal immigration law like they are under Indiana law? Anyone know?

  3. What a fine article, thank you! I can testify firsthand and by detailed legal reports (at end of this note) as to the dire consequences of rejecting this truth from the fine article above: "The inclusion and expansion of this right [to jury] in Indiana’s Constitution is a clear reflection of our state’s intention to emphasize the importance of every Hoosier’s right to make their case in front of a jury of their peers." Over $20? Every Hoosier? Well then how about when your very vocation is on the line? How about instead of a jury of peers, one faces a bevy of political appointees, mini-czars, who care less about due process of the law than the real czars did? Instead of trial by jury, trial by ideological ordeal run by Orwellian agents? Well that is built into more than a few administrative law committees of the Ind S.Ct., and it is now being weaponized, as is revealed in articles posted at this ezine, to root out post moderns heresies like refusal to stand and pledge allegiance to all things politically correct. My career was burned at the stake for not so saluting, but I think I was just one of the early logs. Due, at least in part, to the removal of the jury from bar admission and bar discipline cases, many more fires will soon be lit. Perhaps one awaits you, dear heretic? Oh, at that Ind. article 12 plank about a remedy at law for every damage done ... ah, well, the founders evidently meant only for those damages done not by the government itself, rabid statists that they were. (Yes, that was sarcasm.) My written reports available here: Denied petition for cert (this time around): http://tinyurl.com/zdmawmw Denied petition for cert (from the 2009 denial and five year banishment): http://tinyurl.com/zcypybh Related, not written by me: Amicus brief: http://tinyurl.com/hvh7qgp

  4. Justice has finally been served. So glad that Dr. Ley can finally sleep peacefully at night knowing the truth has finally come to the surface.

  5. While this right is guaranteed by our Constitution, it has in recent years been hampered by insurance companies, i.e.; the practice of the plaintiff's own insurance company intervening in an action and filing a lien against any proceeds paid to their insured. In essence, causing an additional financial hurdle for a plaintiff to overcome at trial in terms of overall award. In a very real sense an injured party in exercise of their right to trial by jury may be the only party in a cause that would end up with zero compensation.

ADVERTISEMENT