Opinions April 16, 2014

April 16, 2014
Back to TopE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

Indiana Supreme Court
David Bleeke v. Bruce Lemmon, in his capacity as Commissioner of the Indiana Department of Correction; Thor R. Miller, as Chairman of the Indiana Parole Board; et al.
Civil plenary. Reverses the trial court’s grant of summary judgment in favor of the parole board with respect to Bleeke’s additional parole conditions 4, 5, 17, 19 and 20, and remands with instructions that it enter an order enjoining the parole board from enforcing those conditions. Summarily affirms the Court of Appeals opinion with respect to its analysis of Bleeke’s additional parole conditions 8, 15, 17 and 19, and his challenges to Ind. Code §§ 11-13-3-4(g) and 35-42-4-11, and remands with instructions that the trial court also enter an order enjoining the parole board from enforcing conditions 8 and 15 unless it clarifies them first, and enjoining the parole board from enforcing those statutory parole conditions derived from the unconstitutionally overbroad labeling of Bleeke as an “offender against children.” Affirms the trial court’s grant of summary judgment in favor of the parole board with respect to Bleeke’s remaining additional conditions. Affirms the trial court’s grant of summary judgment to the parole board with respect to Bleeke’s claims about the constitutionality of the Sex Offender Management and Monitoring Program.

Indiana Court of Appeals
Daniel Dodd v. State of Indiana (NFP)
Criminal. Affirms sentence following guilty plea to Class B felony burglary; two counts of Class D felony theft; Class D felonies possession of a schedule IV controlled substance, unlawful possession of a legend drug, and unlawful sale of a legend drug; and possession of marijuana as a Class A misdemeanor.

Katrina Baker v. State of Indiana (NFP)
Criminal. Affirms conviction of Class A felony robbery.

Jeffrey L. Daniel v. State of Indiana (NFP)
Criminal. Affirms conviction and sentence for Class A felony burglary resulting in serious bodily injury.

Ontorio Frye v. State of Indiana (NFP)
Criminal. Affirms convictions of Class A misdemeanor operating a vehicle while intoxicated and Class B misdemeanor disorderly conduct.

Philip H. Chamberlain v. State of Indiana (NFP)
Criminal. Reverses order Chamberlain pay $15,000 in restitution. Because a restitution order cannot be based on an incident for which a defendant is not convicted and the court can’t determine from the trial record what Chamberlain’s counterfeiting conviction covers, the case is remanded for a determination of the amount of restitution, if any, the victim is entitled to for his counterfeiting conviction only.

Jimmy Isbell v. State of Indiana (NFP)
Criminal. Affirms sentence for Class A felony neglect of a dependent.

Bryan J. Fields v. State of Indiana (NFP)
Criminal. Affirms conviction of Class D felony theft.

Chas J. Harper v. State of Indiana (NFP)
Post conviction. Affirms denial of petition for post-conviction relief and remands to the trial court with instructions to correct the sentencing order, abstract of judgment and chronological case summary to reflect that the 30-year habitual offender enhancement serves as an enhancement of Harper’s Class A felony dealing in methamphetamine sentence.  

In the Matter of the Involuntary Termination of the Parent-Child Relationship of M.P., Minor Child, and her Father M.J.P., M.J.P. v. Indiana Department of Child Services (NFP)
Juvenile. Affirms termination of parental rights.

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


Sponsored by
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. I think the cops are doing a great job locking up criminals. The Murder rates in the inner cities are skyrocketing and you think that too any people are being incarcerated. Maybe we need to lock up more of them. We have the ACLU, BLM, NAACP, Civil right Division of the DOJ, the innocent Project etc. We have court system with an appeal process that can go on for years, with attorneys supplied by the government. I'm confused as to how that translates into the idea that the defendants are not being represented properly. Maybe the attorneys need to do more Pro-Bono work

  2. We do not have 10% of our population (which would mean about 32 million) incarcerated. It's closer to 2%.

  3. If a class action suit or other manner of retribution is possible, count me in. I have email and voicemail from the man. He colluded with opposing counsel, I am certain. My case was damaged so severely it nearly lost me everything and I am still paying dearly.

  4. There's probably a lot of blame that can be cast around for Indiana Tech's abysmal bar passage rate this last February. The folks who decided that Indiana, a state with roughly 16,000 to 18,000 attorneys, needs a fifth law school need to question the motives that drove their support of this project. Others, who have been "strong supporters" of the law school, should likewise ask themselves why they believe this institution should be supported. Is it because it fills some real need in the state? Or is it, instead, nothing more than a resume builder for those who teach there part-time? And others who make excuses for the students' poor performance, especially those who offer nothing more than conspiracy theories to back up their claims--who are they helping? What evidence do they have to support their posturing? Ultimately, though, like most everything in life, whether one succeeds or fails is entirely within one's own hands. At least one student from Indiana Tech proved this when he/she took and passed the February bar. A second Indiana Tech student proved this when they took the bar in another state and passed. As for the remaining 9 who took the bar and didn't pass (apparently, one of the students successfully appealed his/her original score), it's now up to them (and nobody else) to ensure that they pass on their second attempt. These folks should feel no shame; many currently successful practicing attorneys failed the bar exam on their first try. These same attorneys picked themselves up, dusted themselves off, and got back to the rigorous study needed to ensure they would pass on their second go 'round. This is what the Indiana Tech students who didn't pass the first time need to do. Of course, none of this answers such questions as whether Indiana Tech should be accredited by the ABA, whether the school should keep its doors open, or, most importantly, whether it should have even opened its doors in the first place. Those who promoted the idea of a fifth law school in Indiana need to do a lot of soul-searching regarding their decisions. These same people should never be allowed, again, to have a say about the future of legal education in this state or anywhere else. Indiana already has four law schools. That's probably one more than it really needs. But it's more than enough.

  5. This man Steve Hubbard goes on any online post or forum he can find and tries to push his company. He said court reporters would be obsolete a few years ago, yet here we are. How does he have time to search out every single post about court reporters and even spy in private court reporting forums if his company is so successful???? Dude, get a life. And back to what this post was about, I agree that some national firms cause a huge problem.