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. 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.

  2. 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

  3. 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

  4. 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

  5. Here's an idea...how about we MORE heavily regulate the law schools to reduce the surplus of graduates, driving starting salaries up for those new grads, so that we can all pay our insane amount of student loans off in a reasonable amount of time and then be able to afford to do pro bono & low-fee work? I've got friends in other industries, radiology for example, and their schools accept a very limited number of students so there will never be a glut of new grads and everyone's pay stays high. For example, my radiologist friend's school accepted just six new students per year.

ADVERTISEMENT