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
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. Falk said “At this point, at this minute, we’ll savor this particular victory.” “It certainly is a historic week on this front,” Cockrum said. “What a delight ... “Happy Independence Day to the women of the state of Indiana,” WOW. So we broke with England for the right to "off" our preborn progeny at will, and allow the processing plant doing the dirty deeds (dirt cheap) to profit on the marketing of those "products of conception." I was completely maleducated on our nation's founding, it would seem. (But I know the ACLU is hard at work to remedy that, too.)

  2. congratulations on such balanced journalism; I also love how fetus disposal affects women's health protection, as covered by Roe...

  3. It truly sickens me every time a case is compared to mine. The Indiana Supreme Court upheld my convictions based on a finding of “hidden threats.” The term “hidden threat” never appeared until the opinion in Brewington so I had no way of knowing I was on trial for making hidden threats because Dearborn County Prosecutor F Aaron Negangard argued the First Amendment didn't protect lies. Negangard convened a grand jury to investigate me for making “over the top” and “unsubstantiated” statements about court officials, not hidden threats of violence. My indictments and convictions were so vague, the Indiana Court of Appeals made no mention of hidden threats when they upheld my convictions. Despite my public defender’s closing arguments stating he was unsure of exactly what conduct the prosecution deemed to be unlawful, Rush found that my lawyer’s trial strategy waived my right to the fundamental error of being tried for criminal defamation because my lawyer employed a strategy that attempted to take advantage of Negangard's unconstitutional criminal defamation prosecution against me. Rush’s opinion stated the prosecution argued two grounds for conviction one constitutional and one not, however the constitutional true threat “argument” consistently of only a blanket reading of subsection 1 of the intimidation statute during closing arguments, making it impossible to build any kind of defense. Of course intent was impossible for my attorney to argue because my attorney, Rush County Chief Public Defender Bryan Barrett refused to meet with me prior to trial. The record is littered with examples of where I made my concerns known to the trial judge that I didn’t know the charges against me, I did not have access to evidence, all while my public defender refused to meet with me. Special Judge Brian Hill, from Rush Superior Court, refused to address the issue with my public defender and marched me to trial without access to evidence or an understanding of the indictments against me. Just recently the Indiana Public Access Counselor found that four over four years Judge Hill has erroneously denied access to the grand jury audio from my case, the most likely reason being the transcription of the grand jury proceedings omitted portions of the official audio record. The bottom line is any intimidation case involves an action or statement that is debatably a threat of physical violence. There were no such statements in my case. The Indiana Supreme Court took partial statements I made over a period of 41 months and literally connected them with dots… to give the appearance that the statements were made within the same timeframe and then claimed a person similarly situated would find the statements intimidating while intentionally leaving out surrounding contextual factors. Even holding the similarly situated test was to be used in my case, the prosecution argued that the only intent of my public writings was to subject the “victims” to ridicule and hatred so a similarly situated jury instruction wouldn't even have applied in my case. Chief Justice Rush wrote the opinion while Rush continued to sit on a committee with one of the alleged victims in my trial and one of the judges in my divorce, just as she'd done for the previous 7+ years. All of this information, including the recent PAC opinion against the Dearborn Superior Court II can be found on my blog www.danbrewington.blogspot.com.

  4. On a related note, I offered the ICLU my cases against the BLE repeatedly, and sought their amici aid repeatedly as well. Crickets. Usually not even a response. I am guessing they do not do allegations of anti-Christian bias? No matter how glaring? I have posted on other links the amicus brief that did get filed (search this ezine, e.g., Kansas attorney), read the Thomas More Society brief to note what the ACLU ran from like vampires from garlic. An Examiner pledged to advance diversity and inclusion came right out on the record and demanded that I choose Man's law or God's law. I wonder, had I been asked to swear off Allah ... what result then, ICLU? Had I been found of bad character and fitness for advocating sexual deviance, what result then ICLU? Had I been lifetime banned for posting left of center statements denigrating the US Constitution, what result ICLU? Hey, we all know don't we? Rather Biased.

  5. It was mentioned in the article that there have been numerous CLE events to train attorneys on e-filing. I would like someone to provide a list of those events, because I have not seen any such events in east central Indiana, and since Hamilton County is one of the counties where e-filing is mandatory, one would expect some instruction in this area. Come on, people, give some instruction, not just applause!

ADVERTISEMENT