Opinions Aug. 11, 2014

August 11, 2014
Back to TopE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

Indiana Court of Appeals
Dwight Hayes v. State of Indiana
Criminal. Affirms conviction for Class A misdemeanor pointing a firearm. Finds the trial court properly rejected Hayes’ proposed jury instructions based on Indiana’s stand-your-ground law because there was no evidence that his property was being attacked when he pointed two handguns at a woman trying to serve him with legal documents.

L.C. Westervelt, Margaret Fox, Joe Dan Trigg, Attorney-in-Fact and Trustee for Lillian Guild, Marilyn Guild, Ramah Lee Jones, Janice Trigg, et al. v. George Woodcock III, d/b/a West Drilling Company
Civil plenary. Reverses summary judgment against Carolyn Sue Stinson and remands to the trial court to enter summary judgment for Stinson. The Posey Circuit Court determined Stinson’s ownership in a mineral interest had lapsed. However, the Court of Appeals found the judgment for Woodcock was in error because Stinson had paid taxes which prevented the lapse of her mineral interest. Judge Mark Bailey concurred in result.  

Colton Milam v. State of Indiana
Criminal. Reverses conviction of Class B misdemeanor public intoxication, finding there is insufficient evidence to sustain the conviction.

Marcus Richardson v. Wendy Knight
Miscellaneous. Affirms trial court’s transfer of Marcus Richardson’s petition for writ of habeas corpus from Madison Circuit Court to the sentencing Marion Superior Court. Because the petition is an attack on the validity of Richardson’s conviction of murder and 60-year sentence, it is to be treated as a petition for post-conviction relief and must be transferred to the sentencing court.

Micah T. Lminggio v. State of Indiana (NFP)
Criminal. Affirms convictions of Class A felony dealing in a narcotic drug and two counts of Class B felony possession of a firearm by a serious violent felon.

Kevin L. Curry v. State of Indiana (NFP)
Post conviction. Affirms denial of post-conviction relief.

In the Matter of the Commitment of E.L., E.L. v. Indiana University Health Bloomington Hospital and Carey Mayer, M.D. (NFP)
Mental health. Affirms involuntary mental health commitment, order for forced medication and order for transport to Richmond State Hospital.

Mike Meyer, Trustee v. Susan Orth, Allen County Treasurer, and Tera K. Klutz, Allen County Auditor, LRB Holdings, Inc. v. Mark Linker, Deborah Linker, America's Wholesale Lender, et al. (NFP)
Miscellaneous. Affirms denial of motion to vacate judgment.

James Mantz v. State of Indiana (NFP)
Criminal. Dismisses motion for immediate discharge from unlawful imprisonment.  

Robert D. Bowen v. State of Indiana (NFP)
Criminal. Affirms resentencing on remand from Indiana Supreme Court.

Lisa Ritchie v. State of Indiana (NFP)
Criminal. Affirms denial of motion to correct erroneous sentence.

Jimmie T. Bowen v. State of Indiana (NFP)
Criminal. Affirms three-year sentence of Class D felony theft.

Bulent Colak v. State of Indiana (NFP)
Criminal. Affirms conviction of Class D felony battery.

John Anthony v. State of Indiana (NFP)
Criminal. Affirms conviction of Class A misdemeanor criminal mischief.

Christopher Woodburn v. State of Indiana (NFP)
Criminal. Affirms conviction of Class D felony domestic battery.

In the Matter of the Termination of the Parent-Child Relationship of: T.D. and M.D. (minor children); A.D. (Father) v. The Indiana Department of Child Services (NFP)
Juvenile. Affirms termination of parental rights.

Chanse T. Starr v. State of Indiana (NFP)
Criminal. Affirms eight-year sentence for conviction of Class C felony burglary served consecutively to a previous conviction of Class C felony corrupt business influence.
Gerardo Nino Romero v. State of Indiana (NFP)
Post conviction. Affirms denial of post-conviction relief.
Donald Woods v. State of Indiana (NFP)
Post conviction. Affirms denial of post-conviction relief.
Christopher Lawson v. State of Indiana (NFP)
Criminal. Affirms aggregate 20-year sentence for convictions of Class B felony possession of a narcotic drug within 1,000 feet of a family housing complex, two counts of Class D felony neglect of a dependent and Class A misdemeanor possession of paraphernalia.

Robert Hoffman v. State of Indiana (NFP)
Criminal. Affirms in part, reverses in part and remands. Affirms conviction of Class D felony strangulation, but reverses imposition of a domestic violence fee and remands with instructions to vacate that part of the judgment.


Sponsored by
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. Lori, you must really love wedding cake stories like this one ... happy enuf ending for you?

  2. This new language about a warning has not been discussed at previous meetings. It's not available online. Since it must be made public knowledge before the vote, does anyone know exactly what it says? Further, this proposal was held up for 5 weeks because members Carol and Lucy insisted that all terms used be defined. So now, definitions are unnecessary and have not been inserted? Beyond these requirements, what is the logic behind giving one free pass to discriminators? Is that how laws work - break it once and that's ok? Just don't do it again? Three members of Carmel's council have done just about everything they can think of to prohibit an anti-discrimination ordinance in Carmel, much to Brainard's consternation, I'm told. These three 'want to be so careful' that they have failed to do what at least 13 other communities, including Martinsville, have already done. It's not being careful. It's standing in the way of what 60% of Carmel residents want. It's hurting CArmel in thT businesses have refused to locate because the council has not gotten with the program. And now they want to give discriminatory one free shot to do so. Unacceptable. Once three members leave the council because they lost their races, the Carmel council will have unanimous approval of the ordinance as originally drafted, not with a one free shot to discriminate freebie. That happens in January 2016. Why give a freebie when all we have to do is wait 3 months and get an ordinance with teeth from Day 1? If nothing else, can you please get s copy from Carmel and post it so we can see what else has changed in the proposal?

  3. Here is an interesting 2012 law review article for any who wish to dive deeper into this subject matter: Excerpt: "Judicial interpretation of the ADA has extended public entity liability to licensing agencies in the licensure and certification of attorneys.49 State bar examiners have the authority to conduct fitness investigations for the purpose of determining whether an applicant is a direct threat to the public.50 A “direct threat” is defined as “a significant risk to the health or safety of others that cannot be eliminated by a modification of policies, practices or procedures, or by the provision of auxiliary aids or services as provided by § 35.139.”51 However, bar examiners may not utilize generalizations or stereotypes about the applicant’s disability in concluding that an applicant is a direct threat.52"

  4. We have been on the waiting list since 2009, i was notified almost 4 months ago that we were going to start receiving payments and we still have received nothing. Every time I call I'm told I just have to wait it's in the lawyers hands. Is everyone else still waiting?

  5. I hope you dont mind but to answer my question. What amendment does this case pretain to?