ILNews

Opinions Aug. 20, 2013

August 20, 2013
Keywords
Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

Indiana Court of Appeals
Carl J. Brandenburg v. State of Indiana
40A04-1301-CR-23
Criminal. Affirms revocation of probation for failure to pay child support after conviction of a Class C felony charge of non-support of a dependent child, but remands to the trial court for a recalculation of the arrearage. The court found that Brandenburg’s daughter had turned 21 before he was charged, and the state acknowledged uncertainty about the ruling that the arrearage was $17,795.05, rather than an amount closer to $10,000, as Brandenburg claims.

Gregory Johnson v. State of Indiana
49A02-1301-CR-28
Criminal. Affirms conviction of misdemeanor possession of marijuana resulting from a police officer’s stop of a vehicle that he believed may have been in violation of the Indiana Window Tint Statute, I.C. 9-19-19-4. The panel held that the stop did not violate the U.S. or Indiana constitutions and that the trial court did not err in refusing to suppress evidence resulting from the stop.

Deborah D. Minnich v. William B. Minnich (NFP)
57A03-1303-DR-92
Divorce. Affirms the denial of Deborah Minnich’s request for an extension of time to complete the refinancing transaction. In her dissent, Judge Nancy Vaidik argues the trial court should have treated the wife’s motion as a Trial Rule 60(B) motion that would have enabled her to conduct discovery and present evidence. Consequently, the COA should have reversed the denial of the wife’s motion and remanded for an evidentiary hearing.

City of Bloomington v. Cheryl Underwood (NFP)
53A01-1212-OV-577
Ordinance Violation. Affirms grant of summary judgment to Underwood on the city’s ordinance violation complaint concerning her rental properties.  

In the Matter of the Termination of the Parent Child Relationship of: D.W., Minor Child, D.C., Father v. The Indiana Department of Child Services (NFP)
02A05-1208-JT-425
Juvenile. Affirms termination of D.C.’s (father) parental rights to his son, D.W.  

Hoosier Enterprises VII, LLC v. Diamond Vending, Inc. (NFP)
45A04-1303-SC-105
Small Claims. Affirms $6,000 judgment against Hoosier Enterprises VII for breach of contract.

Debra Barrett v. Katie Patton (NFP)
54A01-1302-CT-74
Civil Tort. Dismisses Barrett’s appeal of the trial court’s order to deny her “Trial Rule (60)(B) Motion to Set Aside Judgment of Dismissal and Motion to Substitute Party Pursuant to Trial Rule 25(D)(2). Rules the COA lacks jurisdiction because Barrett is deceased and no substitution has been made.   

Joyce Ann Hawkins v. State of Indiana (NFP)
27A02-1301-PC-47
http://media.ibj.com/Lawyer/websites/opinions/index.php?pdf=2013/august/08201302mgr.pdf
Post Conviction. Affirms denial of post-conviction relief petition, finding Hawkins has not met the requirements for newly discovered evidence that would entitle her to a new trial.

Janyer Pinto v. State of Indiana (NFP)
36A05-1301-CR-9
Criminal. Affirms conviction of operating a vehicle as a habitual traffic violator.  

NFN Valance v. Brandy L. Valance (NFP)
17A03-1209-PO-380
Protection Order. Affirms issuance of a protective order against NFN Valance.  

Akeem Turner v. State of Indiana (NFP)
49A02-1302-CR-131
Criminal. Affirms trial court’s revocation of Turner’s probation and order for him to serve the entirety of his previously suspended sentence.  

The Indiana Supreme Court and Tax Court released no opinions by IL deadline. The 7th Circuit Court of Appeals released no Indiana decisions by IL deadline.








 

 

ADVERTISEMENT

Post a comment to this story

COMMENTS POLICY
We reserve the right to remove any post that we feel is obscene, profane, vulgar, racist, sexually explicit, abusive, or hateful.
 
You are legally responsible for what you post and your anonymity is not guaranteed.
 
Posts that insult, defame, threaten, harass or abuse other readers or people mentioned in Indiana Lawyer editorial content are also subject to removal. Please respect the privacy of individuals and refrain from posting personal information.
 
No solicitations, spamming or advertisements are allowed. Readers may post links to other informational websites that are relevant to the topic at hand, but please do not link to objectionable material.
 
We may remove messages that are unrelated to the topic, encourage illegal activity, use all capital letters or are unreadable.
 

Messages that are flagged by readers as objectionable will be reviewed and may or may not be removed. Please do not flag a post simply because you disagree with it.

Sponsored by
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. It really doesn't matter what the law IS, if law enforcement refuses to take reports (or take them seriously), if courts refuse to allow unrepresented parties to speak (especially in Small Claims, which is supposedly "informal"). It doesn't matter what the law IS, if constituents are unable to make effective contact or receive any meaningful response from their representatives. Two of our pets were unnecessarily killed; court records reflect that I "abandoned" them. Not so; when I was denied one of them (and my possessions, which by court order I was supposed to be able to remove), I went directly to the court. And earlier, when I tried to have the DV PO extended (it expired while the subject was on probation for violating it), the court denied any extension. The result? Same problems, less than eight hours after expiration. Ironic that the county sheriff was charged (and later pleaded to) with intimidation, but none of his officers seemed interested or capable of taking such a report from a private citizen. When I learned from one officer what I needed to do, I forwarded audio and transcript of one occurrence and my call to law enforcement (before the statute of limitations expired) to the prosecutor's office. I didn't even receive an acknowledgement. Earlier, I'd gone in to the prosecutor's office and been told that the officer's (written) report didn't match what I said occurred. Since I had the audio, I can only say that I have very little faith in Indiana government or law enforcement.

  2. One can only wonder whether Mr. Kimmel was paid for his work by Mr. Burgh ... or whether that bill fell to the citizens of Indiana, many of whom cannot afford attorneys for important matters. It really doesn't take a judge(s) to know that "pavement" can be considered a deadly weapon. It only takes a brain and some education or thought. I'm glad to see the conviction was upheld although sorry to see that the asphalt could even be considered "an issue".

  3. In response to bryanjbrown: thank you for your comment. I am familiar with Paul Ogden (and applaud his assistance to Shirley Justice) and have read of Gary Welsh's (strange) death (and have visited his blog on many occasions). I am not familiar with you (yet). I lived in Kosciusko county, where the sheriff was just removed after pleading in what seems a very "sweetheart" deal. Unfortunately, something NEEDS to change since the attorneys won't (en masse) stand up for ethics (rather making a show to please the "rules" and apparently the judges). I read that many attorneys are underemployed. Seems wisdom would be to cull the herd and get rid of the rotting apples in practice and on the bench, for everyone's sake as well as justice. I'd like to file an attorney complaint, but I have little faith in anything (other than the most flagrant and obvious) resulting in action. My own belief is that if this was medicine, there'd be maimed and injured all over and the carnage caused by "the profession" would be difficult to hide. One can dream ... meanwhile, back to figuring out to file a pro se "motion to dismiss" as well as another court required paper that Indiana is so fond of providing NO resources for (unlike many other states, who don't automatically assume that citizens involved in the court process are scumbags) so that maybe I can get the family law attorney - whose work left me with no settlement, no possessions and resulted in the death of two pets (etc ad nauseum) - to stop abusing the proceedings supplemental and small claims rules and using it as a vehicle for harassment and apparently, amusement.

  4. Been on social security sense sept 2011 2massive strokes open heart surgery and serious ovarian cancer and a blood clot in my lung all in 14 months. Got a letter in may saying that i didn't qualify and it was in form like i just applied ,called social security she said it don't make sense and you are still geting a check in june and i did ,now i get a check from my part D asking for payment for july because there will be no money for my membership, call my prescription coverage part D and confirmed no check will be there.went to social security they didn't want to answer whats going on just said i should of never been on it .no one knows where this letter came from was California im in virginia and been here sense my strokes and vcu filed for my disability i was in the hospital when they did it .It's like it was a error . My ,mothers social security was being handled in that office in California my sister was dealing with it and it had my social security number because she died last year and this letter came out of the same office and it came at the same time i got the letter for my mother benefits for death and they had the same date of being typed just one was on the mail Saturday and one on Monday. . I think it's a mistake and it should been fixed instead there just getting rid of me .i never got a formal letter saying when i was being tsken off.

  5. Employers should not have racially discriminating mind set. It has huge impact on the society what the big players do or don't do in the industry. Background check is conducted just to verify whether information provided by the prospective employee is correct or not. It doesn't have any direct combination with the rejection of the employees. If there is rejection, there should be something effective and full-proof things on the table that may keep the company or the people associated with it in jeopardy.

ADVERTISEMENT