ILNews

Opinions April 22, 2014

April 22, 2014
Keywords
Back to TopE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

Indiana Court of Appeals
Shelly Bailey v. Lance Bailey
25A04-1309-DR-452
Domestic relation. Reverses trial court’s modification of physical custody of the two children. Finds the Parallel Parenting Time Order did not enable the court to modify the children’s custody to joint custody especially since neither parent petitioned for a change in custody. Judge John Baker dissented, writing that, as instructed by the Parallel Parenting Time Order, the trial court was trying to act in the best interest of the children and to prevent any further destructive behavior by the parents.

In the Matter of the Adoption of B.C.H., a Minor
41A04-1308-AD-388
Adoption. Affirms trial court orders denying grandparents’ motion for relief from judgment and motion to correct error that aimed to set aside stepfather’s adoption of 6-year-old B.C.H. Despite having provided care almost exclusively during the child’s first two years, grandparents are not parties required to receive notice and consent to the adoption. Grandparents also had actual knowledge of the proceedings and did not object or attempt to intervene. In a concurring opinion, Judge Paul Mathias would have required stepfather to get grandparents’ consent, but found in this case grandparents cannot pursue a late challenge to the adoption.

Randy E. Black v. State of Indiana
01A04-1310-CR-526
Criminal. Affirms conviction of Class C felony forgery, holding that the trial court did not err by not ruling on Black’s pro se request for an early trial and that Black did not receive ineffective assistance of counsel. Black, who was serving a sentence in the Department of Correction on unrelated charges, was appointed a public defender at an initial hearing, at which time he told the court he wanted to “file for fast and speedy trial too.” Because a defender had been appointed, that decision was a matter of strategy allocated to defense counsel, and the record does not establish counsel’s assistance fell below an objective standard of reasonableness.

State of Indiana, Indiana Bureau of Motor Vehicles, and Kent Schroder as Commissioner of Motor Vehicles v. Matthew E. Patty (NFP)
09A02-1311-MI-885
Miscellaneous. Reverses order granting Patty’s petition for issuance of a probationary driver’s license. Finds the Indiana Bureau of Motor Vehicles did notify Patty of his habitual traffic violator status and suspension. Also concludes Patty is ineligible for a probationary license because his license was already suspended for a previous judgment when he was arrested for operating while intoxicated in Hendricks County.

Desmond E. Lewis v. State of Indiana (NFP)
92A05-1306-CR-284
Criminal. Affirms conviction of operating a vehicle while intoxicated in a manner that endangers a person, a Class A misdemeanor.

Corey Bates v. State of Indiana (NFP)
49A04-1309-CR-435
Criminal. Affirms conviction for Class C felony forgery.

Conway Jefferson v. State of Indiana (NFP)
49A02-1309-PC-748
Post conviction. Affirms denial of petition for post-conviction relief.

The Indiana Supreme Court and the Indiana Tax Court posted no opinions by IL deadline. The 7th Circuit Court of Appeals posted no Indiana opinions by IL deadline.

 

ADVERTISEMENT

Sponsored by
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. Just an aside, but regardless of the outcome, I 'm proud of Judge William Hughes. He was the original magistrate on the Home place issue. He ruled for Home Place, and was primaried by Brainard for it. Their tool Poindexter failed to unseat Hughes, who won support for his honesty and courage throughout the county, and he was reelected Judge of Hamilton County's Superior Court. You can still stand for something and survive. Thanks, Judge Hughes!

  2. CCHP's real accomplishment is the 2015 law signed by Gov Pence that basically outlaws any annexation that is forced where a 65% majority of landowners in the affected area disagree. Regardless of whether HP wins or loses, the citizens of Indiana will not have another fiasco like this. The law Gov Pence signed is a direct result of this malgovernance.

  3. I gave tempparry guardship to a friend of my granddaughter in 2012. I went to prison. I had custody. My daughter went to prison to. We are out. My daughter gave me custody but can get her back. She was not order to give me custody . but now we want granddaughter back from friend. She's 14 now. What rights do we have

  4. This sure is not what most who value good governance consider the Rule of Law to entail: "In a letter dated March 2, which Brizzi forwarded to IBJ, the commission dismissed the grievance “on grounds that there is not reasonable cause to believe that you are guilty of misconduct.”" Yet two month later reasonable cause does exist? (Or is the commission forging ahead, the need for reasonable belief be damned? -- A seeming violation of the Rules of Profession Ethics on the part of the commission) Could the rule of law theory cause one to believe that an explanation is in order? Could it be that Hoosier attorneys live under Imperial Law (which is also a t-word that rhymes with infamy) in which the Platonic guardians can do no wrong and never owe the plebeian class any explanation for their powerful actions. (Might makes it right?) Could this be a case of politics directing the commission, as celebrated IU Mauer Professor (the late) Patrick Baude warned was happening 20 years ago in his controversial (whisteblowing) ethics lecture on a quite similar topic: http://www.repository.law.indiana.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1498&context=ilj

  5. I have a case presently pending cert review before the SCOTUS that reveals just how Indiana regulates the bar. I have been denied licensure for life for holding the wrong views and questioning the grand inquisitors as to their duties as to state and federal constitutional due process. True story: https://www.scribd.com/doc/299040839/2016Petitionforcert-to-SCOTUS Shorter, Amici brief serving to frame issue as misuse of govt licensure: https://www.scribd.com/doc/312841269/Thomas-More-Society-Amicus-Brown-v-Ind-Bd-of-Law-Examiners

ADVERTISEMENT