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
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. The practitioners and judges who hail E-filing as the Saviour of the West need to contain their respective excitements. E-filing is federal court requires the practitioner to cram his motion practice into pigeonholes created by IT people. Compound motions or those seeking alternative relief are effectively barred, unless the practitioner wants to receive a tart note from some functionary admonishing about the "problem". E-filing is just another method by which courts and judges transfer their burden to practitioners, who are the really the only powerless components of the system. Of COURSE it is easier for the court to require all of its imput to conform to certain formats, but this imposition does NOT improve the quality of the practice of law and does NOT improve the ability of the practitioner to advocate for his client or to fashion pleadings that exactly conform to his client's best interests. And we should be very wary of the disingenuous pablum about the costs. The courts will find a way to stick it to the practitioner. Lake County is a VERY good example of this rapaciousness. Any one who does not believe this is invited to review the various special fees that system imposes upon practitioners- as practitioners- and upon each case ON TOP of the court costs normal in every case manually filed. Jurisprudence according to Aldous Huxley.

  2. Any attorneys who practice in federal court should be able to say the same as I can ... efiling is great. I have been doing it in fed court since it started way back. Pacer has its drawbacks, but the ability to hit an e-docket and pull up anything and everything onscreen is a huge plus for a litigator, eps the sole practitioner, who lacks a filing clerk and the paralegal support of large firms. Were I an Indiana attorney I would welcome this great step forward.

  3. Can we get full disclosure on lobbyist's payments to legislatures such as Mr Buck? AS long as there are idiots that are disrespectful of neighbors and intent on shooting fireworks every night, some kind of regulations are needed.

  4. I am the mother of the child in this case. My silence on the matter was due to the fact that I filed, both in Illinois and Indiana, child support cases. I even filed supporting documentation with the Indiana family law court. Not sure whether this information was provided to the court of appeals or not. Wish the case was done before moving to Indiana, because no matter what, there is NO WAY the state of Illinois would have allowed an appeal on a child support case!

  5. "No one is safe when the Legislature is in session."

ADVERTISEMENT