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. So that none are misinformed by my posting wihtout a non de plume here, please allow me to state that I am NOT an Indiana licensed attorney, although I am an Indiana resident approved to practice law and represent clients in Indiana's fed court of Nth Dist and before the 7th circuit. I remain licensed in KS, since 1996, no discipline. This must be clarified since the IN court records will reveal that I did sit for and pass the Indiana bar last February. Yet be not confused by the fact that I was so allowed to be tested .... I am not, to be clear in the service of my duty to be absolutely candid about this, I AM NOT a member of the Indiana bar, and might never be so licensed given my unrepented from errors of thought documented in this opinion, at fn2, which likely supports Mr Smith's initial post in this thread: http://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-7th-circuit/1592921.html

  2. When I served the State of Kansas as Deputy AG over Consumer Protection & Antitrust for four years, supervising 20 special agents and assistant attorneys general (back before the IBLE denied me the right to practice law in Indiana for not having the right stuff and pretty much crushed my legal career) we had a saying around the office: Resist the lure of the ring!!! It was a take off on Tolkiem, the idea that absolute power (I signed investigative subpoenas as a judge would in many other contexts, no need to show probable cause)could corrupt absolutely. We feared that we would overreach constitutional limits if not reminded, over and over, to be mindful to not do so. Our approach in so challenging one another was Madisonian, as the following quotes from the Father of our Constitution reveal: The essence of Government is power; and power, lodged as it must be in human hands, will ever be liable to abuse. We are right to take alarm at the first experiment upon our liberties. I believe there are more instances of the abridgement of freedom of the people by gradual and silent encroachments by those in power than by violent and sudden usurpations. Liberty may be endangered by the abuse of liberty, but also by the abuse of power. All men having power ought to be mistrusted. -- James Madison, Federalist Papers and other sources: http://www.constitution.org/jm/jm_quotes.htm RESIST THE LURE OF THE RING ALL YE WITH POLITICAL OR JUDICIAL POWER!

  3. My dear Mr Smith, I respect your opinions and much enjoy your posts here. We do differ on our view of the benefits and viability of the American Experiment in Ordered Liberty. While I do agree that it could be better, and that your points in criticism are well taken, Utopia does indeed mean nowhere. I think Madison, Jefferson, Adams and company got it about as good as it gets in a fallen post-Enlightenment social order. That said, a constitution only protects the citizens if it is followed. We currently have a bevy of public officials and judicial agents who believe that their subjectivism, their personal ideology, their elitist fears and concerns and cause celebs trump the constitutions of our forefathers. This is most troubling. More to follow in the next post on that subject.

  4. Yep I am not Bryan Brown. Bryan you appear to be a bigger believer in the Constitution than I am. Were I still a big believer then I might be using my real name like you. Personally, I am no longer a fan of secularism. I favor the confessional state. In religious mattes, it seems to me that social diversity is chaos and conflict, while uniformity is order and peace.... secularism has been imposed by America on other nations now by force and that has not exactly worked out very well.... I think the American historical experiment with disestablishmentarianism is withering on the vine before our eyes..... Since I do not know if that is OK for an officially licensed lawyer to say, I keep the nom de plume.

  5. I am compelled to announce that I am not posting under any Smith monikers here. That said, the post below does have a certain ring to it that sounds familiar to me: http://www.catholicnewworld.com/cnwonline/2014/0907/cardinal.aspx

ADVERTISEMENT