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. On a related note, I offered the ICLU my cases against the BLE repeatedly, and sought their amici aid repeatedly as well. Crickets. Usually not even a response. I am guessing they do not do allegations of anti-Christian bias? No matter how glaring? I have posted on other links the amicus brief that did get filed (search this ezine, e.g., Kansas attorney), read the Thomas More Society brief to note what the ACLU ran from like vampires from garlic. An Examiner pledged to advance diversity and inclusion came right out on the record and demanded that I choose Man's law or God's law. I wonder, had I been asked to swear off Allah ... what result then, ICLU? Had I been found of bad character and fitness for advocating sexual deviance, what result then ICLU? Had I been lifetime banned for posting left of center statements denigrating the US Constitution, what result ICLU? Hey, we all know don't we? Rather Biased.

  2. It was mentioned in the article that there have been numerous CLE events to train attorneys on e-filing. I would like someone to provide a list of those events, because I have not seen any such events in east central Indiana, and since Hamilton County is one of the counties where e-filing is mandatory, one would expect some instruction in this area. Come on, people, give some instruction, not just applause!

  3. This law is troubling in two respects: First, why wasn't the law reviewed "with the intention of getting all the facts surrounding the legislation and its actual impact on the marketplace" BEFORE it was passed and signed? Seems a bit backwards to me (even acknowledging that this is the Indiana state legislature we're talking about. Second, what is it with the laws in this state that seem to create artificial monopolies in various industries? Besides this one, the other law that comes to mind is the legislation that governed the granting of licenses to firms that wanted to set up craft distilleries. The licensing was limited to only those entities that were already in the craft beer brewing business. Republicans in this state talk a big game when it comes to being "business friendly". They're friendly alright . . . to certain businesses.

  4. Gretchen, Asia, Roberto, Tonia, Shannon, Cheri, Nicholas, Sondra, Carey, Laura ... my heart breaks for you, reaching out in a forum in which you are ignored by a professional suffering through both compassion fatigue and the love of filthy lucre. Most if not all of you seek a warm blooded Hoosier attorney unafraid to take on the government and plead that government officials have acted unconstitutionally to try to save a family and/or rescue children in need and/or press individual rights against the Leviathan state. I know an attorney from Kansas who has taken such cases across the country, arguing before half of the federal courts of appeal and presenting cases to the US S.Ct. numerous times seeking cert. Unfortunately, due to his zeal for the constitutional rights of peasants and willingness to confront powerful government bureaucrats seemingly violating the same ... he was denied character and fitness certification to join the Indiana bar, even after he was cleared to sit for, and passed, both the bar exam and ethics exam. And was even admitted to the Indiana federal bar! NOW KNOW THIS .... you will face headwinds and difficulties in locating a zealously motivated Hoosier attorney to face off against powerful government agents who violate the constitution, for those who do so tend to end up as marginalized as Paul Odgen, who was driven from the profession. So beware, many are mere expensive lapdogs, the kind of breed who will gladly take a large retainer, but then fail to press against the status quo and powers that be when told to heel to. It is a common belief among some in Indiana that those attorneys who truly fight the power and rigorously confront corruption often end up, actually or metaphorically, in real life or at least as to their careers, as dead as the late, great Gary Welch. All of that said, I wish you the very best in finding a Hoosier attorney with a fighting spirit to press your rights as far as you can, for you do have rights against government actors, no matter what said actors may tell you otherwise. Attorneys outside the elitist camp are often better fighters that those owing the powers that be for their salaries, corner offices and end of year bonuses. So do not be afraid to retain a green horn or unconnected lawyer, many of them are fine men and woman who are yet untainted by the "unique" Hoosier system.

  5. I am not the John below. He is a journalist and talk show host who knows me through my years working in Kansas government. I did no ask John to post the note below ...

ADVERTISEMENT