ILNews

Opinions Dec. 20, 2013

December 20, 2013
Keywords
Back to TopE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

7th Circuit Court of Appeals
Michael E. Garcia v. Carolyn W. Colvin
13-2120
Civil. Reverses the Social Security Administration’s denial of disability benefits for Michael E. Garcia, finding that the denial was riddled with error and that the record shows Garcia is among the most seriously disabled applicants for disability the Circuit Court has encountered. Remands to the Social Security Administration for proceedings consistent with the opinion.

Indiana Court of Appeals
Richard E. Simmons v. State of Indiana
55A01-1209-CR-444
Criminal. Affirms convictions of four counts of Class A felony attempted murder, two counts of Class D felony criminal recklessness while armed with a deadly weapon and one count each of Class D felony unlawful use of body armor and Class A misdemeanor possession of marijuana. There was ample evidence to convict Simmons of attempted murder, his jury was adequately instructed on the presumption he was innocent and his consecutive sentences were appropriate. Senior Judge Shepherd concurs in separate opinion.

Stephen Brakie v. State of Indiana
65A05-1304-CR-172
Criminal. Affirms conviction of Class A felony child molesting. There is sufficient evidence to sustain the conviction, and the trial court did not abuse its discretion by rejecting Brakie’s proposed jury instruction regarding the presumption of innocence.

In Re the Marriage of Melanie Davis and Angela Summers
53A01-1305-DR-221
Domestic relation. Reverses dismissal of Davis’ petition to dissolve her marriage with Summers. The parties’ marriage was not automatically voided when the trial court granted Davis’ petition to change her name and birth certificate and be identified as a female instead of a male. Remands for further proceedings.

Ronald Gaines v. State of Indiana
49A04-1303-CR-123
Criminal. Affirms conviction of Class A misdemeanor invasion of privacy. Concludes that the return of service was not testimonial, and its admission did not violate Gaines’s rights under the Confrontation Clause.

Michael E. Zanussi v. State of Indiana
29A05-1304-CR-173
Criminal. Affirms conviction of Class A misdemeanor criminal recklessness. The trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying Zanussi’s continuance nor in admitting letters Zanussi wrote from jail.

Shubham Chopra v. Shena Pendyala (NFP)
03A01-1305-SC-191
Small claim. Affirms judgment in favor of Pendyala on Chopra’s action seeking damages for the diminished value of Chopra’s car following a collision with the car driven by Pendyala.

James Mira v. State of Indiana (NFP)
49A04-1305-CR-245
Criminal. Affirms conviction of Class D felony theft.

Marcus R. Carter v. State of Indiana (NFP)
02A03-1304-CR-126
Criminal. Affirms eight-year sentence for Class C felony forgery.

Usman Alim Khan v. State of Indiana (NFP)
29A02-1306-CR-470
Criminal. Affirms denial of petition for alternative misdemeanor sentencing.

Timothy G. White v. State of Indiana (NFP)
09A04-1203-CR-140
Criminal. Affirms denial of petition for jail time credit.

In the Matter of the Termination of the Parent-Child Relationship of: S.T., Minor Child, T.T., Father v. Indiana Department of Child Services (NFP)
57A03-1304-JT-150
Juvenile. Affirms involuntary termination of parental rights.

Eugene L. Small v. Brandi L. Foster (NFP)
34A04-1306-JP-274
Juvenile. Affirms denial of father’s petition to modify custody.

In the Matter of the Termination of the Parent-Child Relationship of: Q.M. and E.M., Minor Children, B.M., Father v. Indiana Department of Child Services (NFP)
15A04-1303-JT-142
Juvenile. Affirms involuntary termination of parental rights.

Hervey Clanton v. State of Indiana (NFP)
20A05-1304-CR-194
Criminal. Affirms convictions and sentence for two counts of Class A felony dealing cocaine within 1,000 feet of a family housing complex, one count of Class B felony possession of a firearm by a serious violent felon, and three counts of Class C felony neglect of a dependent.

The Indiana Supreme Court and Tax Court posted no opinions by IL deadline.

 

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. Such things are no more elections than those in the late, unlamented Soviet Union.

  2. It appears the police and prosecutors are allowed to change the rules halfway through the game to suit themselves. I am surprised that the congress has not yet eliminated the right to a trial in cases involving any type of forensic evidence. That would suit their foolish law and order police state views. I say we eliminate the statute of limitations for crimes committed by members of congress and other government employees. Of course they would never do that. They are all corrupt cowards!!!

  3. 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?

  4. 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?

  5. 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.

ADVERTISEMENT