ILNews

Opinions April 27, 2011

April 27, 2011
Keywords
Back to TopE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

Indiana Supreme Court
Martin Serrano v. State of Indiana and the City of Fort Wayne
02S03-1104-CV-241
Civil. Reverses trial court judgment in favor of the state allowing for the forfeiture of Serrano’s truck. The state concluded he used the truck to transport or facilitate the transportation of a controlled substance for purposes of committing a drug-related offense. There was insufficient evidence to establish by a preponderance that Serrano’s drug possession at the time he was arrested was furthered by the use of his truck or that his truck was used for the purpose of possessing cocaine.

Indiana Court of Appeals
Mario Brown v. State of Indiana
49A02-1008-CR-905
Criminal. Affirms revocation of placement in Marion County Community Corrections. Declines to find the credit-time statute to be a remedial statute or to retroactively apply the credit-time statute to Brown’s case. The 2010 amendment is not retroactive and the prospective application of it doesn’t violate his constitutional right to Equal Protection.

Doe Corporation v. Lolita Honoré, as special administratrix of the estate of Andrea Honoré
49A05-1007-MI-408
Miscellaneous. Reverses grant of motion to dismiss Doe Corp.’s motion for a preliminary determination of law regarding the validity of an opinion of a medical review panel appointed in the medical malpractice action filed by Lolita Honoré. The trial court did possess subject matter jurisdiction over the issue as it involved a request for enforcement of the requirement that the medical review panel chair carry out his statutory duties. The trial court also erred by dismissing the motion for PDL on Trial Rule 12(B)(8) grounds. Remands for further proceedings.

Robert Beeler v. State of Indiana
49A05-1007-CR-456
Criminal. Affirms revocation of probation and criminal corrections placement after finding Beeler violated the terms of his community corrections placement and probation. The chronological case summary entry in another case which indicated that Beeler admitted to violating the terms of his placement and probation is sufficient to establish an admission. As a result, no evidentiary hearing was required. Judge Crone dissents.

Tyrone G. Postell v. State of Indiana (NFP)
49A02-1008-CR-914
Criminal. Affirms convictions of Class A felony criminal deviate conduct and Class C felony intimidation. Remands with instructions to set aside the conviction of and sentence for Class A misdemeanor criminal mischief.

Daniel Farris v. State of Indiana (NFP)
49A02-1009-CR-973
Criminal. Affirms conviction of Class A misdemeanor invasion of privacy.

Jon D. Holman v State of Indiana (NFP)
48A05-1008-CR-499
Criminal. Affirms sentence following guilty plea to Class B felony arson, two counts of Class C felony burglary, Class D felony unlawful possession of a syringe, Class D felony theft, and Class A infraction possession of paraphernalia.

Jesse Savage v. State of Indiana (NFP)
49A02-1002-CR-286
Criminal. Affirms convictions of and sentence for three counts of Class A felony child molesting and one count of Class C felony child molesting.

Andrew D. Patterson v. State of Indiana (NFP)

71A04-1009-CR-664
Criminal. Dismisses appeal because none of the issues raised are properly before the court.

Aubra Ferguson v. State of Indiana (NFP)
87A05-1008-PC-565
Post conviction. Affirms denial of petition for post-conviction relief.

Alton Moss v. State of Indiana (NFP)
27A05-1005-CR-310
Criminal. Affirms convictions of murder and Class B felony burglary.

Gary M. Kincade v. State of Indiana (NFP)
49A02-1009-CR-978
Criminal. Affirms conviction of Class A misdemeanor battery.

Term. of Parent-Child Rel. of J.C., et al.; C.C. v. I.D.C.S. (NFP)
49A02-1008-JT-1018
Juvenile. Affirms involuntary termination of parental rights.

Bradley Laycock v. State of Indiana (NFP)
84A04-1009-CR-593
Criminal. Affirms order sentencing Laycock to eight years in the Department of Correction following his guilty plea to Class B felony neglect of a dependent.

Jerome Taylor v. State of Indiana (NFP)
49A05-1009-CR-551
Criminal. Affirms revocation of placement in community corrections work release program and order that Taylor serve the balance of his sentence in the Department of Correction.

Steven L. Fortner v. Janet M. Fortner (NFP)
67A01-1011-DR-564
Domestic relation. Affirms order following remand in all respects except that the appellate court remands for findings based upon and satisfying the requirements of the child support worksheet. Judge Friedlander concurs in part and dissents in part.

Jacqueline Gaff v. State of Indiana (NFP)
02A03-1007-CR-417
Criminal. Affirms conviction of Class D felony possession of a controlled substance.

Indiana Tax Court had posted no opinions at IL deadline.

The Indiana Supreme Court denied transfer to nine cases for the week ending April 22.
 

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. It appears the police and prosecutors are allowed to change the rules halfway through the game to suit themselves. I am surprised that the congress has not yet eliminated the right to a trial in cases involving any type of forensic evidence. That would suit their foolish law and order police state views. I say we eliminate the statute of limitations for crimes committed by members of congress and other government employees. Of course they would never do that. They are all corrupt cowards!!!

  2. Poor Judge Brown probably thought that by slavishly serving the godz of the age her violations of 18th century concepts like due process and the rule of law would be overlooked. Mayhaps she was merely a Judge ahead of her time?

  3. 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?

  4. 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.

  5. 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?

ADVERTISEMENT