ILNews

Opinions April 8, 2013

April 8, 2013
Keywords
Back to TopE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

The following Indiana Tax Court opinion was issued Friday after IL deadline.
Washington Township Assessor, Allen County Assessor, and Allen County Property Tax Assessment Board of Appeals v. Verizon Data Services, Inc. (NFP)
49T10-1102-TA-13
Tax. Denies Verizon’s motion to dismiss the assessors’ appeal of an Indiana Board of Tax Review final determination of summary judgment in favor of Verizon’s 2005 personal property tax assessment appeal.
 

Monday's opinions

Indiana Court of Appeals
Lorenzo Reid and Larry Blake, a/k/a Larry Reid v. State of Indiana
89A01-1208-PC-377
Post-conviction relief. Affirms denial of post-conviction relief from a 55-year sentence for Reid and a 44-year sentence for Blake, who were convicted in the 1990 murder and attempted robbery of a Richmond liquor store owner. The court ruled that the two were not denied due process when they were denied during post-conviction relief potentially exculpatory DNA evidence that was presented at trial and later lost or destroyed, and that they were not denied due process due to lack of effective assistance of counsel or by the state’s failure to disclose that a witness had a possible prior robbery conviction.  

Halden Martin v. State of Indiana
73A01-1207-CR-300
Criminal. Reverses and remands a conviction of Class A misdemeanor operating a vehicle while intoxicated. A toxicology department witness’s repeated failure to appear for scheduled depositions was a delay attributable to the state, the court ruled, finding that the delay caused a trial 476 days after Martin’s arrest, in violation of Criminal Rule 4(C).

Detona Sargent and One 1996 Buick, VIN 1G4AG55M3T6449095 v. State of Indiana, the Consolidated City of Indianapolis/Marion County, and the Indianapolis Metropolitan Police Department
49A02-1209-MI-708
Miscellaneous.  Affirms the trial court’s grant of summary judgment for the defendants, holding that a sufficient nexus was demonstrated between the underlying crime and the seized vehicle, and that neither Indiana’s bankruptcy exemptions nor Article I, Section 22 of the Indiana Constitution required the trial court to exempt Sargent’s 1996 Buick from forfeiture.

Darryl Shepherd v. State of Indiana
49A05-1111-CR-600
Criminal. Reaffirms on rehearing a prior ruling that affirmed a conviction for unlawful possession of a firearm by a serious violent felon, holding that Shepherd raises a defense for the first time on appeal. The argument was therefore waived, and even if it hadn’t been, the SVF conviction was based on a 1993 conviction of dealing cocaine, and a habitual offender enhancement was applied to different 1991 and 2008 convictions.

Adolfo Lopez v. State of Indiana
15A01-1212-CR-550
Criminal. Reverses and remands as excessive the trial court setting bond at $3 million surety plus $250,000 cash for restaurateur Adolfo Lopez on Class C felony charges of corrupt business influence, conspiracy to commit corrupt business influence, and four counts of forgery, and four counts of Class D felony perjury. Orders the trial court to set a reasonable bond based on relevant statutory factors.  

Kevin Perry v. Unemployment Insurance Review Board of the Indiana Dept. of Workforce Development and Indiana Dept. of Workforce Development UI Claims Adjudication Center
93A02-1208-EX-649
Civil. Affirms the decision by the Review Board of the Indiana Department of Workforce Development removing Perry from the Trade Adjustment Assistance training program. The Court of Appeals found Perry deviated from his approved education plan when he took online courses without prior approval.

Gary Hammerstone, Susan Hammerstone, Palmor Products, Inc., Northhampton Farm Bureau Cooperative Association, and Canns-Bilco Distributors, Inc. v. Indiana Insurance Company
06A04-1211-PL-595
Civil plenary. Reverses trial court’s order granting summary judgment to Indiana Insurance Co., and remands for further proceedings. The court found that language in the umbrella policy defining “products-completed operations hazard” as “bodily injury” and “property damage” and contrary language in the endorsement stating the insurance does not apply do “bodily injury” or “property damage” rendered the umbrella policy as “inherently ambiguous.”

Term. of the Parent-Child Rel. of S.B.: U.D. and L.B. v. Indiana Dept. of Child Services (NFP)
15A05-1209-JT-457
Juvenile. Affirms termination of parental rights.

Chad Lindstrom v. State of Indiana (NFP)
49A02-1209-CR-739
Criminal. Affirms conviction of Class A misdemeanor battery.

Jason Neal v. State of Indiana (NFP)
49A04-1209-CR-449
Criminal. Affirms conviction of Class A misdemeanor operating a vehicle with a blood alcohol content of at least 0.15 percent.

Franklin Allen v. State of Indiana (NFP)
34A02-1209-CR-782
Criminal. Affirms sentence for Class B felony possession of cocaine within 1,000 feet of a school property.

Terrell Van Causey v. State of Indiana (NFP)
02A03-1210-CR-425
Criminal. Affirms convictions of two counts of Class B felony dealing in cocaine or a narcotic drug; one count of Class D felony maintaining a common nuisance; and one Class A misdemeanor count of possession of marijuana, hash oil or hashish.

In the Matter of C.C., Child in Need of Services; C.C. (Father) v. Indiana Dept. of Child Services (NFP)
49A04-1208-JC-440
Juvenile. Affirms adjudication of C.C. as a child in need of services.

Theodore Fuentes v. State of Indiana (NFP)
71A03-1207-CR-328
Criminal. Affirms conviction of Class D felony residential entry.

Tariq Qureshi and Mehnaz Qureshi v. Richard E. Coulter, Cox/Hammond Realty Group, and Darrell Cox (NFP)
32A01-1211-SC-497
Small claims. Affirms trial court ruling in favor of defendants in a lawsuit involving a failed real estate deal.

Evia Jane Lee v. State of Indiana (NFP)
85A02-1211-CR-935
Criminal. Affirms trial court revocation of probation.

Samantha Richey v. State of Indiana (NFP)
49A02-1208-CR-743
Criminal. Affirms Class A misdemeanor conviction of criminal recklessness.

Patrick Wiese v. State of Indiana (NFP)
49A02-1207-CR-595
Criminal. Affirms on interlocutory appeal the trial court’s denial of a motion to suppress evidence obtained from Wiese’s apartment when police responded to a report of a disturbance.

John C. Kincade, Jr. v. State of Indiana (NFP)
12A02-1207-CR-583
Criminal. Affirms trial court sentence of seven years in prison, with three years executed and the remaining suspended to probation, for convictions of sexual misconduct with a minor and child solicitation.  

Indiana Supreme Court and Indiana Tax Court issued no opinions Monday by IL deadline. 7th Circuit Court of Appeals issued no Indiana opinions Monday by IL deadline.


 

ADVERTISEMENT

Sponsored by
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. Applause, applause, applause ..... but, is this duty to serve the constitutional order not much more incumbent upon the State, whose only aim is to be pure and unadulterated justice, than defense counsel, who is also charged with gaining a result for a client? I agree both are responsible, but it seems to me that the government attorneys bear a burden much heavier than defense counsel .... "“I note, much as we did in Mechling v. State, 16 N.E.3d 1015 (Ind. Ct. App. 2014), trans. denied, that the attorneys representing the State and the defendant are both officers of the court and have a responsibility to correct any obvious errors at the time they are committed."

  2. Do I have to hire an attorney to get co-guardianship of my brother? My father has guardianship and my older sister was his co-guardian until this Dec 2014 when she passed and my father was me to go on as the co-guardian, but funds are limit and we need to get this process taken care of quickly as our fathers health isn't the greatest. So please advise me if there is anyway to do this our self or if it requires a lawyer? Thank you

  3. I have been on this program while on parole from 2011-2013. No person should be forced mentally to share private details of their personal life with total strangers. Also giving permission for a mental therapist to report to your parole agent that your not participating in group therapy because you don't have the financial mean to be in the group therapy. I was personally singled out and sent back three times for not having money and also sent back within the six month when you aren't to be sent according to state law. I will work to het this INSOMM's removed from this state. I also had twelve or thirteen parole agents with a fifteen month period. Thanks for your time.

  4. Our nation produces very few jurists of the caliber of Justice DOUGLAS and his peers these days. Here is that great civil libertarian, who recognized government as both a blessing and, when corrupted by ideological interests, a curse: "Once the investigator has only the conscience of government as a guide, the conscience can become ‘ravenous,’ as Cromwell, bent on destroying Thomas More, said in Bolt, A Man For All Seasons (1960), p. 120. The First Amendment mirrors many episodes where men, harried and harassed by government, sought refuge in their conscience, as these lines of Thomas More show: ‘MORE: And when we stand before God, and you are sent to Paradise for doing according to your conscience, *575 and I am damned for not doing according to mine, will you come with me, for fellowship? ‘CRANMER: So those of us whose names are there are damned, Sir Thomas? ‘MORE: I don't know, Your Grace. I have no window to look into another man's conscience. I condemn no one. ‘CRANMER: Then the matter is capable of question? ‘MORE: Certainly. ‘CRANMER: But that you owe obedience to your King is not capable of question. So weigh a doubt against a certainty—and sign. ‘MORE: Some men think the Earth is round, others think it flat; it is a matter capable of question. But if it is flat, will the King's command make it round? And if it is round, will the King's command flatten it? No, I will not sign.’ Id., pp. 132—133. DOUGLAS THEN WROTE: Where government is the Big Brother,11 privacy gives way to surveillance. **909 But our commitment is otherwise. *576 By the First Amendment we have staked our security on freedom to promote a multiplicity of ideas, to associate at will with kindred spirits, and to defy governmental intrusion into these precincts" Gibson v. Florida Legislative Investigation Comm., 372 U.S. 539, 574-76, 83 S. Ct. 889, 908-09, 9 L. Ed. 2d 929 (1963) Mr. Justice DOUGLAS, concurring. I write: Happy Memorial Day to all -- God please bless our fallen who lived and died to preserve constitutional governance in our wonderful series of Republics. And God open the eyes of those government officials who denounce the constitutions of these Republics by arbitrary actions arising out capricious motives.

  5. From back in the day before secularism got a stranglehold on Hoosier jurists comes this great excerpt via Indiana federal court judge Allan Sharp, dedicated to those many Indiana government attorneys (with whom I have dealt) who count the law as a mere tool, an optional tool that is not to be used when political correctness compels a more acceptable result than merely following the path that the law directs: ALLEN SHARP, District Judge. I. In a scene following a visit by Henry VIII to the home of Sir Thomas More, playwriter Robert Bolt puts the following words into the mouths of his characters: Margaret: Father, that man's bad. MORE: There is no law against that. ROPER: There is! God's law! MORE: Then God can arrest him. ROPER: Sophistication upon sophistication! MORE: No, sheer simplicity. The law, Roper, the law. I know what's legal not what's right. And I'll stick to what's legal. ROPER: Then you set man's law above God's! MORE: No, far below; but let me draw your attention to a fact I'm not God. The currents and eddies of right and wrong, which you find such plain sailing, I can't navigate. I'm no voyager. But in the thickets of law, oh, there I'm a forester. I doubt if there's a man alive who could follow me there, thank God... ALICE: (Exasperated, pointing after Rich) While you talk, he's gone! MORE: And go he should, if he was the Devil himself, until he broke the law! ROPER: So now you'd give the Devil benefit of law! MORE: Yes. What would you do? Cut a great road through the law to get after the Devil? ROPER: I'd cut down every law in England to do that! MORE: (Roused and excited) Oh? (Advances on Roper) And when the last law was down, and the Devil turned round on you where would you hide, Roper, the laws being flat? (He leaves *1257 him) This country's planted thick with laws from coast to coast man's laws, not God's and if you cut them down and you're just the man to do it d'you really think you would stand upright in the winds that would blow then? (Quietly) Yes, I'd give the Devil benefit of law, for my own safety's sake. ROPER: I have long suspected this; this is the golden calf; the law's your god. MORE: (Wearily) Oh, Roper, you're a fool, God's my god... (Rather bitterly) But I find him rather too (Very bitterly) subtle... I don't know where he is nor what he wants. ROPER: My God wants service, to the end and unremitting; nothing else! MORE: (Dryly) Are you sure that's God! He sounds like Moloch. But indeed it may be God And whoever hunts for me, Roper, God or Devil, will find me hiding in the thickets of the law! And I'll hide my daughter with me! Not hoist her up the mainmast of your seagoing principles! They put about too nimbly! (Exit More. They all look after him). Pgs. 65-67, A MAN FOR ALL SEASONS A Play in Two Acts, Robert Bolt, Random House, New York, 1960. Linley E. Pearson, Atty. Gen. of Indiana, Indianapolis, for defendants. Childs v. Duckworth, 509 F. Supp. 1254, 1256 (N.D. Ind. 1981) aff'd, 705 F.2d 915 (7th Cir. 1983)

ADVERTISEMENT