ILNews

Opinions April 17, 2014

April 17, 2014
Keywords
Back to TopE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

The following Indiana Supreme Court opinion was posted after IL deadline Wednesday:
Ronnie Jamel Rice v. State of Indiana
45S00-1206-CR-343
Criminal. Affirms trial court’s revised sentencing order of life in prison without parole. Rice argued the trial court erred in considering non-statutory aggravating circumstances to support the order and his sentence should be revised. The revised order comports with Supreme Court precedent and does not represent an abuse of the trial court’s discretion.

Thursday’s opinions
Indiana Tax Court

Larry G. Jones and Sharon F. Jones v. Jefferson County Assessor
39T10-1308-TA-68
Tax. Denies the assessor’s motion to dismiss. Instructs the Joneses to file no later than April 28 a request for the Indiana Board of Tax Review to prepare a certified copy of its administrative record in the case. In accordance with Indiana Tax Court Rule 3(E), the Joneses shall then file the record with the clerk of the Tax Court within 30 days after they have received notification from the board that the record has been prepared. Once the court receives the board’s record, it will schedule another telephonic case management conference to discuss the need for additional briefing and oral argument.

Indiana Court of Appeals
Jason Taylor v. State of Indiana
45A03-1310-CR-406
Criminal. Reverses denial of petition for expungement. Determines that the word “shall” in Section 35-38-9-2(d) is mandatory language requiring expungement. And such an interpretation does not render Section 35-38-9-9(d) meaningless because that section applies to other parts of the statute where the trial court does have discretion to deny a petition for expungement.

Geoffrey A. Gilbert v. Melinda J. Gilbert
57A03-1308-DR-312
Domestic relation. Affirms order approving mother’s relocation request. The trial court did not abuse its discretion in granting mother’s request to relocate because she had a good faith and legitimate purpose for relocating, and the move was not contrary to the children’s best interests. Additionally, mother is not entitled to appellate attorney fees because father’s appeal is not frivolous or in bad faith. Judge Robb dissents.

Charrise Belton v. State of Indiana
49A04-1310-CR-487
Criminal. Reveres conviction of Class A misdemeanor driving while suspended. The state presented insufficient evidence to negate Belton’s necessity defense.

Teresa Fry n/k/a Teresa Dolan v. Michael Fry
64A03-1307-DR-262
Domestic relation. Affirms grant of Michael Fry’s emergency petition for modification of custody, alleging that Teresa Dolan suffers from a degenerative illness that renders her unable to adequately care for the children. Finds the trial court had jurisdiction to determine the custody of K.D. and it committed no legal error.

Geico General Insurance Company v. Laura B. Coyne, Cheryl A. O'Mailia, and James O'Mailia
20A04-1307-CT-325
Civil tort. Reverses award of attorney fees to the O’Mailias, which was based upon GEICO litigating in bad faith. GEICO’s counsel’s statements show the decisions not to disclose certain information was strategic in nature and believed to be within the bounds of the law. Denies the couple’s request for appellate attorney fees. Judge Barnes concurs in a separate opinion.

Joshua Cornett v. State of Indiana (NFP)
49A02-1308-CR-730
Criminal. Affirms conviction of Class A misdemeanor resisting law enforcement.

In Re: the Marriage of: Gordon Somerville v. Effie K. Somerville (NFP)
49A02-1308-DR-735
Domestic relation. Vacates trial court’s judgment in part because husband established a prima facie error with regard to the trial court’s valuations of marital property and remands with instructions.

K.P. v. State of Indiana (NFP)
87A04-1307-JV-384
Juvenile. Affirms adjudication that K.P. committed two acts that would be child molesting if committed by an adult.

Michelle D. Gauvin v. State of Indiana (NFP)
79A02-1306-PC-542
Post conviction. Affirms denial of petition for post-conviction relief.

Thomas Curtis Edmond v. State of Indiana (NFP)
45A03-1303-PC-90
Post conviction. Affirms denial of petition for post-conviction relief.

Gwendolyn F. Jones v. State of Indiana (NFP)
48A02-1308-CR-678
Criminal. Affirms convictions of Class B felony robbery and Class C felony battery and remands with instructions to enter judgment upon Jones’ felony intimidation conviction as a misdemeanor and resentence her.

Patrick R. Taylor v. Jason Evans, Curtis Evans, and Chrystal Evans (NFP)
49A02-1303-CT-195
Civil tort. Affirms dismissal of Taylor’s personal injury action for failure to comply with a discovery order.

Daniel Torres v. State of Indiana (NFP)
48A05-1305-CR-267
Criminal. Affirms conviction of Class C felony sexual misconduct with a minor.

Barbara Wiggles v. Sandlian Management Corporation d/b/a U-Stor Self-Storage (NFP)
49A02-1306-CT-511
Civil tort. Affirms decision to grant U-Stor’s motion to strike Wiggles’ affidavit and its decision to grant U-Stor’s motion for judgment on the pleadings.

Ben L. Macon v. State of Indiana (NFP)
02A03-1309-CR-364
Criminal. Affirms denial of Macon’s motion to sever and hold two separate trials.

The Indiana Supreme Court posted no decisions Thursday prior to IL deadline. The 7th Circuit Court of Appeals posted no Indiana decisions prior to IL deadline.

 

ADVERTISEMENT

Sponsored by
2015 Distinguished Barrister &
Up and Coming Lawyer Reception

Tuesday, May 5, 2015 • 4:30 - 7:00 pm
Learn More


ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. A traditional parade of attorneys? Really Evansville? Y'all need to get out more. When is the traditional parade of notaries? Nurses? Sanitation workers? Pole dancers? I gotta wonder, do throngs of admiring citizens gather to laud these marching servants of the constitution? "Show us your billing records!!!" Hoping some video gets posted. Ours is not a narcissistic profession by any chance, is it? Nah .....

  2. My previous comment not an aside at court. I agree with smith. Good call. Just thought posting here a bit on the if it bleeds it leads side. Most attorneys need to think of last lines of story above.

  3. Hello everyone I'm Gina and I'm here for the exact same thing you are. I have the wonderful joy of waking up every morning to my heart being pulled out and sheer terror of what DCS is going to Throw at me and my family today.Let me start from the !bebeginning.My daughter lost all rights to her 3beautiful children due to Severe mental issues she no longer lives in our state and has cut all ties.DCS led her to belive that once she done signed over her right the babies would be with their family. We have faught screamed begged and anything else we could possibly due I hired a lawyer five grand down the drain.You know all I want is my babies home.I've done everything they have even asked me to do.Now their saying I can't see my grandchildren cause I'M on a prescription for paipain.I have a very rare blood disease it causes cellulitis a form of blood poisoning to stay dormant in my tissues and nervous system it also causes a ,blood clotting disorder.even with the two blood thinners I'm on I still Continue to develop them them also.DCS knows about my illness and still they refuse to let me see my grandchildren. I Love and miss them so much Please can anyone help Us my grandchildren and I they should be worrying about what toy there going to play with but instead there worrying about if there ever coming home again.THANK YOU DCS FOR ALL YOU'VE DONE. ( And if anyone at all has any ideals or knows who can help. Please contact (765)960~5096.only serious callers

  4. He must be a Rethuglican, for if from the other side of the aisle such acts would be merely personal and thus not something that attaches to his professional life. AND ... gotta love this ... oh, and on top of talking dirty on the phone, he also, as an aside, guess we should mention, might be important, not sure, but .... "In addition to these allegations, Keaton was accused of failing to file an appeal after he collected advance payment from a client seeking to challenge a ruling that the client repay benefits because of unreported income." rimshot

  5. I am not a fan of some of the 8.4 discipline we have seen for private conduct-- but this was so egregious and abusive and had so many points of bad conduct relates to the law and the lawyer's status as a lawyer that it is clearly a proper and just disbarment. A truly despicable account of bad acts showing unfit character to practice law. I applaud the outcome.

ADVERTISEMENT