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
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. Indianapolis employers harassment among minorities AFRICAN Americans needs to be discussed the metro Indianapolis area is horrible when it comes to harassing African American employees especially in the local healthcare facilities. Racially profiling in the workplace is an major issue. Please make it better because I'm many civil rights leaders would come here and justify that Indiana is a state the WORKS only applies to Caucasian Americans especially in Hamilton county. Indiana targets African Americans in the workplace so when governor pence is trying to convince people to vote for him this would be awesome publicity for the Presidency Elections.

  2. Wishing Mary Willis only God's best, and superhuman strength, as she attempts to right a ship that too often strays far off course. May she never suffer this personal affect, as some do who attempt to change a broken system: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QojajMsd2nE

  3. Indiana's seatbelt law is not punishable as a crime. It is an infraction. Apparently some of our Circuit judges have deemed settled law inapplicable if it fails to fit their litmus test of political correctness. Extrapolating to redefine terms of behavior in a violation of immigration law to the entire body of criminal law leaves a smorgasbord of opportunity for judicial mischief.

  4. I wonder if $10 diversions for failure to wear seat belts are considered moral turpitude in federal immigration law like they are under Indiana law? Anyone know?

  5. What a fine article, thank you! I can testify firsthand and by detailed legal reports (at end of this note) as to the dire consequences of rejecting this truth from the fine article above: "The inclusion and expansion of this right [to jury] in Indiana’s Constitution is a clear reflection of our state’s intention to emphasize the importance of every Hoosier’s right to make their case in front of a jury of their peers." Over $20? Every Hoosier? Well then how about when your very vocation is on the line? How about instead of a jury of peers, one faces a bevy of political appointees, mini-czars, who care less about due process of the law than the real czars did? Instead of trial by jury, trial by ideological ordeal run by Orwellian agents? Well that is built into more than a few administrative law committees of the Ind S.Ct., and it is now being weaponized, as is revealed in articles posted at this ezine, to root out post moderns heresies like refusal to stand and pledge allegiance to all things politically correct. My career was burned at the stake for not so saluting, but I think I was just one of the early logs. Due, at least in part, to the removal of the jury from bar admission and bar discipline cases, many more fires will soon be lit. Perhaps one awaits you, dear heretic? Oh, at that Ind. article 12 plank about a remedy at law for every damage done ... ah, well, the founders evidently meant only for those damages done not by the government itself, rabid statists that they were. (Yes, that was sarcasm.) My written reports available here: Denied petition for cert (this time around): http://tinyurl.com/zdmawmw Denied petition for cert (from the 2009 denial and five year banishment): http://tinyurl.com/zcypybh Related, not written by me: Amicus brief: http://tinyurl.com/hvh7qgp

ADVERTISEMENT