ILNews

Opinions April 30, 2012

April 30, 2012
Keywords
Back to TopE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

7th Circuit Court of Appeals posted no opinions at IL deadline.

Indiana Supreme Court and Indiana Tax Court posted no opinions at IL deadline.

Indiana Court of Appeals

D.A. v. State of Indiana
49A02-1108-JV-692
Juvenile. Affirms juvenile court’s decision to order inpatient treatment for D.A. who entered into a plea agreement admitting to Class B misdemeanor battery if committed by an adult and “conditionally” agreed to admit to Class C felony child molesting, if committed by an adult. D.A.’s placement is consistent with the goals for his rehabilitation. The appellate judges do not have jurisdiction to resolve the issue of whether the trial court erred in accepting his conditional plea to the child molesting charge because there was no evidence of D.A.’s intent with regard to the molesting. The conditional plea is the equivalent to a withheld judgment so there is no final judgment or appealable final order from which to appeal.

Daniel P. Millikan v. Lori A. Eifrid
92A03-1109-PL-433
Civil plenary. Affirms trial court properly determined that Eifrid was the bona fide and innocent purchaser for value of a parcel of property when applying the doctrine of equitable subrogation. The trial court erred in ordering Millikan to pay Eifrid’s attorney fees because the court didn’t determine that Millikan had committed fraud that would entitle Eifried to recover those fees. Remands with instructions to vacate the award of attorney fees.

Dontevius Hutcherson v. State of Indiana
45A03-1109-CR-420
Criminal. Affirms convictions, including murder, attempted murder and robbery. Finds Hutcherson was afforded the opportunity to meet and question Lee face-to-face and therefore was not deprived of his right of confrontation under the state or federal constitutions. Due to the cumulative nature of evidence contained in Victor Lee’s prior statement, Hutcherson was not prejudiced when it was read aloud to the jury because Lee was illiterate.

Jason Jeffries v. State of Indiana
87A01-1102-CR-128
Criminal. Affirms the trial court properly denied Jeffries’ motion to set aside his guilty plea. The confusion regarding application of the habitual offender count to one cause and not the other does not rise to the level of a manifest injustice. His ineffective assistance of trial counsel claim also fails.

Walter B. Duncan v. The Greater Brownsburg Chamber of Commerce, Inc.
32A01-1109-CC-429
Civil collection. Reverses denial of the chamber’s motion for summary judgment on Duncan’s breach of contract claim and remands with instructions. The most Duncan was entitled to in the event of a breach of contract by the chamber of the notice requirement was 30 days compensation, and the designated evidence does not create a genuine question regarding damages. Adopts the majority rule that “the summary discharge of an employee entitled under the employment contract to a specified period of notice ordinarily permits him to recover his compensation for the notice period only and not for the entire balance of the contract period.”

Jasper A. Wisdom v. State of Indiana (NFP)
82A01-1108-CR-380
Criminal. Remands for an inquiry into Wisdom’s ability to pay the $1,600 in restitution and, if appropriate, for adjustment of the restitution amount based on that factor.

State of Indiana v. Blake Lodde (NFP)
79A02-1111-CR-1067
Criminal. Reverses order granting Lodde’s motion to suppress evidence gathered during and after an investigatory stop of his vehicle. Remands with instructions.

Louis Amalfitano v. State of Indiana (NFP)
48A04-1108-CR-446
Criminal. Affirms convictions, including Class B felony criminal confinement, Class C felony battery resulting in serious bodily injury, and Class D felony exploitation of an endangered adult.

Brett A. Head-Mattingly v. State of Indiana (NFP)
82A05-1103-CR-127
Criminal. Affirms conviction of Class B felonies attempted burglary and burglary, and Class D felony theft.

Michael E. Kirk v. State of Indiana (NFP)
49A04-1111-PC-609
Post conviction. Affirms denial of petition for post-conviction relief.

Nancy A. Regula, as Administrator of the Estate of Daniel G. Young, Deceased v. HPG Corp., doing business as Cohen Brothers Metals Co. and Integrity Metals (NFP)
89A01-1109-CT-402
Civil tort. Affirms summary judgment in favor of HPG Corp. on a negligence claim.

J.M. v. State of Indiana (NFP)
18A02-1109-JV-817
Juvenile. Affirms adjudication for what would be Class B felony child molesting if committed by an adult.

C.F. v. M.R. (NFP)
30A01-1110-DR-467
Domestic relation. Affirms order granting M.R.’s motion to modify custody.

Rodney D. Craft v. State of Indiana (NFP)
66A03-1104-CR-145
Criminal. Affirms convictions of Class D felonies possession of reagents and precursors with intent to manufacture a controlled substance, possession of methamphetamine, and possession of cocaine.

 

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. Such things are no more elections than those in the late, unlamented Soviet Union.

  2. 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!!!

  3. 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?

  4. 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?

  5. 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.

ADVERTISEMENT