ILNews

Opinions Aug. 26, 2014

August 26, 2014
Keywords
Back to TopE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

7th Circuit Court of Appeals
Roy Smith v. Richard Brown
12-3731
U.S. District Court, Northern District of Indiana, South Bend Division.
Judge James T. Moody
Criminal. Affirms the denial of Smith’s habeas petition. Finds although Smith’s counsel appeared to be particularly deficient, Smith failed to demonstrate how his lawyer’s substandard effort prejudiced his case since there was overwhelming evidence against him.

Indiana Court of Appeals
Lamont Carpenter v. State of Indiana
02A05-1309-CR-467
Criminal. Affirms convictions of five counts of Class A felony dealing in cocaine, Class B felony unlawful possession of a handgun by a serious violent felon, Class C felony possession of a handgun with altered identifying marks, and Class D felony possession of marijuana. Finds that as the jury was not aware Carpenter was a serious violent felon, he was not prejudiced by the partial  bifurcation of his trial. The trial court did not abuse its discretion in admitting mail with his name and address taken during a search of his home because it was not hearsay, and Carpenter was not subjected to double jeopardy when he was convicted of possession of a firearm by an SVF and possession of a handgun with altered identifying marks.

In re the Marriage of: Wade R. Meisberger v. Margaret Bishop f/k/a Margaret Meisberger
39A01-1402-DR-76
Domestic relation. Remands trial court order on all pending issues denying Wade Meisberger’s motion to modify parenting time and motion to correct error, instructing the trial court to make necessary findings in order to restrict father’s parenting time such that parenting time for father, now incarcerated, might endanger his son’s physical health or significantly impair his emotional development.

Daryl Schweitzer and Lynn Schweitzer v. American Family Mutual Insurance Company and Jennifer Gholson Insurance Agency
45A03-1307-CT-248
Civil tort. Affirms entry of summary judgment in favor of defendants, finding the Schweitzers were not entitled to additional payments under their homeowner’s insurance policy after a fire destroyed their home and insurance provided total payments of $326,040 for the dwelling.

Jeffrey Crider v. Christina Crider
53A05-1307-DR-358, 53A04-1401-DR-26
Domestic relation. Reverses decision to automatically vest “ownership and control” in stocks and membership interests of Jeff Crider upon his failure to pay a $4.7 million equalization judgment within 180 days. Affirms order he pay Christina Crider that equalization judgment, plus interest accruing after 90 days and to pay any attorney fees she incurs in collecting the judgment. Finds the trial court’s decision to modify his child support obligation after an appeal had been initiated in this case is void and the child support obligation remains at $308 per week. Remands for further proceedings. Affirms in all other respects.

Steven Anderson v. State of Indiana
49A02-1309-CR-788
Criminal. Affirms conviction of Class D felony escape for violation of home detention, holding that the court did not err by admitting evidence of events preceding Anderson’s arrest, including evidence from the company that monitored his ankle bracelet showing he was not in his home after he was required to be.   

Ann Withers v. State of Indiana
48A02-1403-CR-130
Criminal. Affirms termination of placement in drug court program and order reinstating an executed 5-year, 6-month prison sentence for convictions of Class B felony dealing in methamphetamine, Class D felony possession of two or more chemical reagents or precursors, and Class D felony neglect of a dependent. The trial court was authorized to take judicial notice of electronically signed attendance reports showing Withers had missed multiple mental health appointments, and it did not abuse its discretion in terminating her participation in drug court.  

State of Indiana v. Brandon Scott Schulze
73A01-1311-CR-471
Criminal. Reverses the trial court’s order reinstating Schulze’s driving privileges. Schulze, who was barred from driving after he refused to take a chemical test for alcohol intoxication, argued the suspension of his license was invalid because the arresting officer was not certified to administer the chemical test. The COA finds Schulze’s argument fails because state statute does not require the arresting officer to be trained to perform a chemical test and, if Schulze had agreed to submit to the test, the officer could have found a qualified person to give the test.   

Louise Frontz, Guardian of the Person and Estate of Brian O'Neal Frontz, and Brian Frontz v. Middletown Enterprises, Inc., d/b/a Sinclair Glass
05A04-1307-PL-364
Civil plenary. Affirms summary judgment for Middletown Enterprises. Finds although Frontz was a temporary worker assigned to Middletown, the company was his joint employer along with the temp agency. Therefore, Frontz cannot file a lawsuit against Middletown seeking remedy for his severe injuries but can only file a workers’ compensation claim against the company.

Lawrence Mulry v. State of Indiana (NFP)
49A02-1312-CR-1035
Criminal. Affirms conviction of Class A misdemeanor resisting law enforcement.

Jose B. Rodriguez v. State of Indiana (NFP)
20A05-1309-CR-491
Criminal. Affirms convictions of four counts of Class A felony child molesting. Finds although the trial court did abuse its discretion in admitting evidence of extra-jurisdictional prior bad acts, the error was harmless.

In re the Marriage of: Robin D. (Hanson) Blankenship and James E. Hanson, James E. Hanson v. Robin D. (Hanson) Blankenship (NFP)
41A05-1310-DR-511
Domestic relation. Affirms denial of James Hanson’s petition to modify child support and granting of Robin Blankenship’s verified petition for rule to show cause, holding Hanson in contempt based on his child support arrearage. Judge James Kirsch dissents. He argues the trial court did abuse its discretion in denying the modification and recommends the court reverse the order and remand with instructions to enter a new child support order.

Leroy Shoaff v. Denisa Dekker (NFP)
45A05-1401-CT-43
Civil tort. Affirms judgment for $386,000 against Shoaff for his fault in a 2007 motor vehicle accident that injured Dekker’s knee.

Fernando Miranda v. State of Indiana (NFP)
49A04-1401-CR-10
Criminal. Affirms convictions for Class A misdemeanor resisting law enforcement and Class B misdemeanor public intoxication.

Orange County v. Review Board of the Indiana Department of Workforce Development and Daniel Harris (NFP)
93A02-1403-EX-144
Civil. Affirms the Review Board of the Department of Workforce Development’s determination that Orange County did not file a timely appeal to the decision that Harris was eligible for unemployment benefits.

Destiny Skeen v. Review Board of the Indiana Department of Workforce Development and Hub Restaurant LLP (NFP)
93A02-1401-EX-57
Civil. Reverses decision by the Indiana Department of Workforce Development that Skeen was discharged for just cause. Concludes the Review Board decision was not supported by substantial evidence.
 

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. Poor Judge Brown probably thought that by slavishly serving the godz of the age her violations of 18th century concepts like due process and the rule of law would be overlooked. Mayhaps she was merely a Judge ahead of her time?

  2. 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?

  3. 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.

  4. 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?

  5. 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.

ADVERTISEMENT