ILNews

Opinions April 22, 2014

April 22, 2014
Keywords
Back to TopE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

Indiana Court of Appeals
Shelly Bailey v. Lance Bailey
25A04-1309-DR-452
Domestic relation. Reverses trial court’s modification of physical custody of the two children. Finds the Parallel Parenting Time Order did not enable the court to modify the children’s custody to joint custody especially since neither parent petitioned for a change in custody. Judge John Baker dissented, writing that, as instructed by the Parallel Parenting Time Order, the trial court was trying to act in the best interest of the children and to prevent any further destructive behavior by the parents.

In the Matter of the Adoption of B.C.H., a Minor
41A04-1308-AD-388
Adoption. Affirms trial court orders denying grandparents’ motion for relief from judgment and motion to correct error that aimed to set aside stepfather’s adoption of 6-year-old B.C.H. Despite having provided care almost exclusively during the child’s first two years, grandparents are not parties required to receive notice and consent to the adoption. Grandparents also had actual knowledge of the proceedings and did not object or attempt to intervene. In a concurring opinion, Judge Paul Mathias would have required stepfather to get grandparents’ consent, but found in this case grandparents cannot pursue a late challenge to the adoption.

Randy E. Black v. State of Indiana
01A04-1310-CR-526
Criminal. Affirms conviction of Class C felony forgery, holding that the trial court did not err by not ruling on Black’s pro se request for an early trial and that Black did not receive ineffective assistance of counsel. Black, who was serving a sentence in the Department of Correction on unrelated charges, was appointed a public defender at an initial hearing, at which time he told the court he wanted to “file for fast and speedy trial too.” Because a defender had been appointed, that decision was a matter of strategy allocated to defense counsel, and the record does not establish counsel’s assistance fell below an objective standard of reasonableness.

State of Indiana, Indiana Bureau of Motor Vehicles, and Kent Schroder as Commissioner of Motor Vehicles v. Matthew E. Patty (NFP)
09A02-1311-MI-885
Miscellaneous. Reverses order granting Patty’s petition for issuance of a probationary driver’s license. Finds the Indiana Bureau of Motor Vehicles did notify Patty of his habitual traffic violator status and suspension. Also concludes Patty is ineligible for a probationary license because his license was already suspended for a previous judgment when he was arrested for operating while intoxicated in Hendricks County.

Desmond E. Lewis v. State of Indiana (NFP)
92A05-1306-CR-284
Criminal. Affirms conviction of operating a vehicle while intoxicated in a manner that endangers a person, a Class A misdemeanor.

Corey Bates v. State of Indiana (NFP)
49A04-1309-CR-435
Criminal. Affirms conviction for Class C felony forgery.

Conway Jefferson v. State of Indiana (NFP)
49A02-1309-PC-748
Post conviction. Affirms denial of petition for post-conviction relief.

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

 

ADVERTISEMENT

Sponsored by
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. Indianapolis employers harassment among minorities AFRICAN Americans needs to be discussed the metro Indianapolis area is horrible when it comes to harassing African American employees especially in the local healthcare facilities. Racially profiling in the workplace is an major issue. Please make it better because I'm many civil rights leaders would come here and justify that Indiana is a state the WORKS only applies to Caucasian Americans especially in Hamilton county. Indiana targets African Americans in the workplace so when governor pence is trying to convince people to vote for him this would be awesome publicity for the Presidency Elections.

  2. Wishing Mary Willis only God's best, and superhuman strength, as she attempts to right a ship that too often strays far off course. May she never suffer this personal affect, as some do who attempt to change a broken system: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QojajMsd2nE

  3. 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.

  4. 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?

  5. 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

ADVERTISEMENT