ILNews

Opinions, Aug. 21, 2013

August 21, 2013
Keywords
Back to TopE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

Opinions – Aug. 21, 2013
Indiana Court of Appeals

Rodney Melton v. State of Indiana
49A02-1212-CR-1008
Criminal. Affirms conviction of Class C felony child molesting and Class D felony dissemination of matter harmful to minors, rejecting an argument that the dissemination statute requires a “performance” under that law be public. The court also found Melton’s 11-year aggregate sentence was not inappropriate in light of his character and the nature of the offense.

In Re: The Matter of A.H., and S.H., Minor Children, V.H., Mother v. Indiana Department of Child Services
10A01-1302-JM-93
Juvenile. Affirms trial court order granting Department of Child Services petitions to interview minor children on a complaint the mother was using and selling drugs despite no evidence in a home search or drug screen of the mother. The majority held that DCS’s interest could be served only by interviewing the children and that mother’s due process rights were not violated. Dissenting Judge Patricia Riley would dismiss the case as moot because the trial court declined to stay the order allowing the interviews.

In the Matter of the Commitment of T.K. v. Department of Veterans Affairs
49A05-1303-MH-100
Mental health. Affirms order for regular commitment, agreeing that T.K. was suffering from mental illness and was a danger to others. Although T.K. never harmed anyone, the COA finds his persistent threatening phone calls and hostile behavior is sufficient to find him a danger and to support his involuntary commitment to a mental health facility.

Dustin Trowbridge v. State of Indiana (NFP)
48A02-1205-CR-453
Criminal. Affirms denial of motion to correct erroneous sentence for conviction of murder, rape, robbery, burglary, aggravated battery, criminal confinement, theft, auto theft, abuse of a corpse and escape.

Runyon Equipment Rental, Inc. v. Review Board of the Indiana Department of Workforce Development and Stephen Mortimore (NFP)
93A02-1302-EX-182
Agency action. Reverses Indiana Department of Workforce Development Review Board’s grant of unemployment benefits and remands to the review board, also reversing a denial of a trial court order denying Runyon’s request to present additional evidence.

John Aaron Shoultz, III v. State of Indiana (NFP)
36A01-1208-CR-359
Criminal. Affirms conviction of murder and Class B felony unlawful possession of a firearm by a serious violent felon.

Luke Smith v. State of Indiana (NFP)
82A04-1212-CR-650
Criminal. Affirms conviction and seven-year executed sentence on a charge of Class C felony robbery.

David A. Perry v. State of Indiana (NFP)
90A05-1301-CR-24
Criminal. Affirms revocation of probation on a conviction of Class D felony possession of a controlled substance.

Marcella Mullins v. State of Indiana (NFP)
44A03-1303-CR-102
Criminal. Affirms on interlocutory appeal denial of a motion to suppress evidence gathered in a police protective sweep of her residence that resulted in charges of multiple felony methamphetamine charges and related counts.

Indiana Supreme Court and Indiana Tax Court issued no opinions by IL deadline Wednesday.

7th Circuit Court of Appeals issued no Indiana opinions by IL deadline Wednesday.

 

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. 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?

  2. 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.

  3. You can put your photos anywhere you like... When someone steals it they know it doesn't belong to them. And, a man getting a divorce is automatically not a nice guy...? That's ridiculous. Since when is need of money a conflict of interest? That would mean that no one should have a job unless they are already financially solvent without a job... A photographer is also under no obligation to use a watermark (again, people know when a photo doesn't belong to them) or provide contact information. Hey, he didn't make it easy for me to pay him so I'll just take it! Well heck, might as well walk out of the grocery store with a cart full of food because the lines are too long and you don't find that convenient. "Only in Indiana." Oh, now you're passing judgement on an entire state... What state do you live in? I need to characterize everyone in your state as ignorant and opinionated. And the final bit of ignorance; assuming a photo anyone would want is lucky and then how much does your camera have to cost to make it a good photo, in your obviously relevant opinion?

  4. Seventh Circuit Court Judge Diane Wood has stated in “The Rule of Law in Times of Stress” (2003), “that neither laws nor the procedures used to create or implement them should be secret; and . . . the laws must not be arbitrary.” According to the American Bar Association, Wood’s quote drives home this point: The rule of law also requires that people can expect predictable results from the legal system; this is what Judge Wood implies when she says that “the laws must not be arbitrary.” Predictable results mean that people who act in the same way can expect the law to treat them in the same way. If similar actions do not produce similar legal outcomes, people cannot use the law to guide their actions, and a “rule of law” does not exist.

  5. Linda, I sure hope you are not seeking a law license, for such eighteenth century sentiments could result in your denial in some jurisdictions minting attorneys for our tolerant and inclusive profession.

ADVERTISEMENT