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

facebook - twitter on Facebook & Twitter

Indiana State Bar Association

Indianapolis Bar Association

Evansville Bar Association

Allen County Bar Association

Indiana Lawyer on Facebook

facebook
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. in a lawyer discipline case Judge Brown, now removed, was presiding over a hearing about a lawyer accused of the supposedly heinous ethical violation of saying the words "Illegal immigrant." (IN re Barker) http://www.in.gov/judiciary/files/order-discipline-2013-55S00-1008-DI-429.pdf .... I wonder if when we compare the egregious violations of due process by Judge Brown, to her chiding of another lawyer for politically incorrectness, if there are any conclusions to be drawn about what kind of person, what kind of judge, what kind of apparatchik, is busy implementing the agenda of political correctness and making off-limits legit advocacy about an adverse party in a suit whose illegal alien status is relevant? I am just asking the question, the reader can make own conclsuion. Oh wait-- did I use the wrong adjective-- let me rephrase that, um undocumented alien?

  2. of course the bigger questions of whether or not the people want to pay for ANY bussing is off limits, due to the Supreme Court protecting the people from DEMOCRACY. Several decades hence from desegregation and bussing plans and we STILL need to be taking all this taxpayer money to combat mostly-imagined "discrimination" in the most obviously failed social program of the postwar period.

  3. You can put your photos anywhere you like... When someone steals it they know it doesn't belong to them. And, a man getting a divorce is automatically not a nice guy...? That's ridiculous. Since when is need of money a conflict of interest? That would mean that no one should have a job unless they are already financially solvent without a job... A photographer is also under no obligation to use a watermark (again, people know when a photo doesn't belong to them) or provide contact information. Hey, he didn't make it easy for me to pay him so I'll just take it! Well heck, might as well walk out of the grocery store with a cart full of food because the lines are too long and you don't find that convenient. "Only in Indiana." Oh, now you're passing judgement on an entire state... What state do you live in? I need to characterize everyone in your state as ignorant and opinionated. And the final bit of ignorance; assuming a photo anyone would want is lucky and then how much does your camera have to cost to make it a good photo, in your obviously relevant opinion?

  4. Seventh Circuit Court Judge Diane Wood has stated in “The Rule of Law in Times of Stress” (2003), “that neither laws nor the procedures used to create or implement them should be secret; and . . . the laws must not be arbitrary.” According to the American Bar Association, Wood’s quote drives home this point: The rule of law also requires that people can expect predictable results from the legal system; this is what Judge Wood implies when she says that “the laws must not be arbitrary.” Predictable results mean that people who act in the same way can expect the law to treat them in the same way. If similar actions do not produce similar legal outcomes, people cannot use the law to guide their actions, and a “rule of law” does not exist.

  5. Linda, I sure hope you are not seeking a law license, for such eighteenth century sentiments could result in your denial in some jurisdictions minting attorneys for our tolerant and inclusive profession.

ADVERTISEMENT