ILNews

Opinions June 5, 2014

June 5, 2014
Keywords
Back to TopE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

The Indiana Tax Court released the following opinions after IL deadline Wednesday:
Jaklin Idris and Dariana Kamenova v. Marion County Assessor
49T10-1108-TA-49
Tax. Finds the Indiana Board of Tax Review did not err in upholding the 2006 assessment of Idris’ and Kamenova’s condominium unit. Rejects their claims the board abused its discretion in finding that Kamenova failed to establish that their property was entitled to an obsolescence adjustment, and in determining that the assessments of the three other units in their building failed to show that their property was over-assessed; and that the board erred in upholding their assessment given the assessor’s improper use of the “one unit multiple units” classification.

Nick Popovich v. Indiana Department of State Revenue (NFP)
49T10-1010-TA-53
Tax. Reaffirms decision to deny Popovich’s second motion to compel because he had not complied with the requirements of Ind. Trial Rule 26(F).

Thursday’s opinions
Indiana Supreme Court

Victor Ponce v. State of Indiana
20S04-1308-PC-533
Post conviction. Reverses the denial of Ponce’s petition for post-conviction relief, which contended that the Spanish translation of the rights he was waiving by entering the plea was so inaccurate his plea was not entered knowingly, intelligently and voluntarily. In this case Ponce carried his initial burden of demonstrating that at the guilty plea hearing he was not properly advised of the constitutional rights he was waiving by pleading guilty. And the state failed to show that the record as a whole nonetheless demonstrated that Ponce understood his constitutional rights and waived them. Remands for further proceedings.

Indiana Court of Appeals
Larry D. Russell, Jr. v. State of Indiana
84A01-1312-CR-532
Criminal. Reverses sentence following guilty plea to five counts of Class C felony neglect of a dependent and two counts of Class C felony criminal confinement. The plea agreement and sentence were based on the faulty premise that Russell’s sentence must be limited to 10 years under I.C. 35-50-1-2(c). Remands for Russell to have the option to ratify and proceed with the current plea agreement without the illegal sentencing limitation; if he does not exercise that option within 30 days after this opinion has been certified, the plea agreement shall be vacated.

Curtis Oakes v. State of Indiana (NFP)
41A01-1308-PC-379
Post conviction. Affirms denial of petition for post-conviction relief.

Keith Scruggs v. State of Indiana (NFP)
49A05-1307-PC-341
Post conviction. Affirms denial of petition for post-conviction relief.

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

 

ADVERTISEMENT

Sponsored by
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. Just an aside, but regardless of the outcome, I 'm proud of Judge William Hughes. He was the original magistrate on the Home place issue. He ruled for Home Place, and was primaried by Brainard for it. Their tool Poindexter failed to unseat Hughes, who won support for his honesty and courage throughout the county, and he was reelected Judge of Hamilton County's Superior Court. You can still stand for something and survive. Thanks, Judge Hughes!

  2. 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.

  3. 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

  4. 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

  5. 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

ADVERTISEMENT