ILNews

Opinions April 16, 2014

April 16, 2014
Keywords
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.
02S05-1305-PL-364
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)
48A02-1310-CR-847
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)
10A05-1308-CR-396
Criminal. Affirms conviction of Class A felony robbery.

Jeffrey L. Daniel v. State of Indiana (NFP)
41A01-1306-CR-294
Criminal. Affirms conviction and sentence for Class A felony burglary resulting in serious bodily injury.

Ontorio Frye v. State of Indiana (NFP)
49A02-1309-CR-793
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)
53A01-1305-CR-247
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)
46A03-1306-CR-203
Criminal. Affirms sentence for Class A felony neglect of a dependent.

Bryan J. Fields v. State of Indiana (NFP)
20A03-1308-CR-330
Criminal. Affirms conviction of Class D felony theft.

Chas J. Harper v. State of Indiana (NFP)
40A01-1307-PC-286
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)
02A03-1309-JT-388
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.
 

ADVERTISEMENT

Sponsored by
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. CCHP's real accomplishment is the 2015 law signed by Gov Pence that basically outlaws any annexation that is forced where a 65% majority of landowners in the affected area disagree. Regardless of whether HP wins or loses, the citizens of Indiana will not have another fiasco like this. The law Gov Pence signed is a direct result of this malgovernance.

  2. 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

  3. 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

  4. 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

  5. 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.

ADVERTISEMENT