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. File under the Sociology of Hoosier Discipline ... “We will be answering the complaint in due course and defending against the commission’s allegations,” said Indianapolis attorney Don Lundberg, who’s representing Hudson in her disciplinary case. FOR THOSE WHO DO NOT KNOW ... Lundberg ran the statist attorney disciplinary machinery in Indy for decades, and is now the "go to guy" for those who can afford him .... the ultimate insider for the well-to-do and/or connected who find themselves in the crosshairs. It would appear that this former prosecutor knows how the game is played in Circle City ... and is sacrificing accordingly. See more on that here ... http://www.theindianalawyer.com/supreme-court-reprimands-attorney-for-falsifying-hours-worked/PARAMS/article/43757 Legal sociologists could have a field day here ... I wonder why such things are never studied? Is a sacrifice to the well connected former regulators a de facto bribe? Such questions, if probed, could bring about a more just world, a more equal playing field, less Stalinist governance. All of the things that our preambles tell us to value could be advanced if only sunshine reached into such dark worlds. As a great jurist once wrote: "Publicity is justly commended as a remedy for social and industrial diseases. Sunlight is said to be the best of disinfectants; electric light the most efficient policeman." Other People's Money—and How Bankers Use It (1914). Ah, but I am certifiable, according to the Indiana authorities, according to the ISC it can be read, for believing such trite things and for advancing such unwanted thoughts. As a great albeit fictional and broken resistance leaders once wrote: "I am the dead." Winston Smith Let us all be dead to the idea of maintaining a patently unjust legal order.

  2. The Department of Education still has over $100 million of ITT Education Services money in the form of $100+ million Letters of Credit. That money was supposed to be used by The DOE to help students. The DOE did nothing to help students. The DOE essentially stole the money from ITT Tech and still has the money. The trustee should be going after the DOE to get the money back for people who are owed that money, including shareholders.

  3. Do you know who the sponsor of the last-minute amendment was?

  4. Law firms of over 50 don't deliver good value, thats what this survey really tells you. Anybody that has seen what they bill for compared to what they deliver knows that already, however.

  5. As one of the many consumers affected by this breach, I found my bank data had been lifted and used to buy over $200 of various merchandise in New York. I did a pretty good job of tracing the purchases to stores around a college campus just from the info on my bank statement. Hm. Mr. Hill, I would like my $200 back! It doesn't belong to the state, in my opinion. Give it back to the consumers affected. I had to freeze my credit and take out data protection, order a new debit card and wait until it arrived. I deserve something for my trouble!

ADVERTISEMENT