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. I need an experienced attorney to handle a breach of contract matter. Kindly respond for more details. Graham Young

  2. I thought the slurs were the least grave aspects of her misconduct, since they had nothing to do with her being on the bench. Why then do I suspect they were the focus? I find this a troubling trend. At least she was allowed to keep her law license.

  3. Section 6 of Article I of the Indiana Constitution is pretty clear and unequivocal: "Section 6. No money shall be drawn from the treasury for the benefit of any religious or theological institution."

  4. Video pen? Nice work, "JW"! Let this be a lesson and a caution to all disgruntled ex-spouses (or soon-to-be ex-spouses) . . . you may think that altercation is going to get you some satisfaction . . . it will not.

  5. First comment on this thread is a fitting final comment on this thread, as that the MCBA never answered Duncan's fine question, and now even Eric Holder agrees that the MCBA was in material error as to the facts: "I don't get it" from Duncan December 1, 2014 5:10 PM "The Grand Jury met for 25 days and heard 70 hours of testimony according to this article and they made a decision that no crime occurred. On what basis does the MCBA conclude that their decision was "unjust"? What special knowledge or evidence does the MCBA have that the Grand Jury hearing this matter was unaware of? The system that we as lawyers are sworn to uphold made a decision that there was insufficient proof that officer committed a crime. How can any of us say we know better what was right than the jury that actually heard all of the the evidence in this case."

ADVERTISEMENT