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. The is an unsigned editorial masquerading as a news story. Almost everyone quoted was biased in favor of letting all illegal immigrants remain in the U.S. (Ignoring that Obama deported 3.5 million in 8 years). For some reason Obama enforcing part of the immigration laws was O.K. but Trump enforcing additional parts is terrible. I have listed to press conferences and explanations of the Homeland Security memos and I gather from them that less than 1 million will be targeted for deportation, the "dreamers" will be left alone and illegals arriving in the last two years -- especially those arriving very recently -- will be subject to deportation but after the criminals. This will not substantially affect the GDP negatively, especially as it will take place over a number of years. I personally think this is a rational approach to the illegal immigration problem. It may cause Congress to finally pass new immigration laws rationalizing the whole immigration situation.

  2. Mr. Straw, I hope you prevail in the fight. Please show us fellow American's that there is a way to fight the corrupted justice system and make them an example that you and others will not be treated unfairly. I hope you the best and good luck....

  3. @ President Snow - Nah, why try to fix something that ain't broken??? You do make an excellent point. I am sure some Mickey or Minnie Mouse will take Ruckers seat, I wonder how his retirement planning is coming along???

  4. Can someone please explain why Judge Barnes, Judge Mathias and Chief Judge Vaidik thought it was OK to re weigh the evidence blatantly knowing that by doing so was against the rules and went ahead and voted in favor of the father? I would love to ask them WHY??? I would also like to ask the three Supreme Justices why they thought it was OK too.

  5. How nice, on the day of my car accident on the way to work at the Indiana Supreme Court. Unlike the others, I did not steal any money or do ANYTHING unethical whatsoever. I am suing the Indiana Supreme Court and appealed the failure of the district court in SDIN to protect me. I am suing the federal judge because she failed to protect me and her abandonment of jurisdiction leaves her open to lawsuits because she stripped herself of immunity. I am a candidate for Indiana Supreme Court justice, and they imposed just enough sanction so that I am made ineligible. I am asking the 7th Circuit to remove all of them and appoint me as the new Chief Justice of Indiana. That's what they get for dishonoring my sacrifice and and violating the ADA in about 50 different ways.

ADVERTISEMENT