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. 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

  2. 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

  3. 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

  4. 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.

  5. I totally agree with John Smith.

ADVERTISEMENT