ILNews

Opinions Dec. 28, 2012

December 28, 2012
Keywords
Back to TopE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

Indiana Court of Appeals
James M. Brinkley and Stephanie L. Brinkley v. Michael Haluska, P.E., d/b/a Retro Tech, et al.
32A01-1204-MI-181
Miscellaneous. Affirms trial court’s summary judgment that Donald Gindelberger is a good faith purchaser for value of a 1965 Chevrolet Corvette because the Brinkleys were in the best position to prevent the allegedly fraudulent sale and did not do so. Also, it concluded the BMV is immune from liability.  

Joel Zivot v. Pamela London
49A02-1207-DR-613
Domestic relation. Reverses order and judgment on verified petition for contempt, holding that the documents before the court on which the judgment was based contained no evidence that such agreements had been approved by a court or incorporated into a court order.

Duke Energy Indiana, Inc. v. Office of the Utility Consumer Counselor, Indiana Utility Regulatory Commission
93A02-1111-EX-1042
Executive administration/utility. Affirms IURC denial of Duke’s request for deferred accounting of more than $11 million in storm-related expenses in a rehearing, holding that there were changes in the evidence from the first hearing that justified the IURC’s decision, and that the IURC was not required to explain why it reached a different conclusion.

Ricky Jester v. State of Indiana (NFP)
82A01-1203-CR-141
Criminal. Affirms trial court’s denial of Jester’s motion for correction of erroneous sentence.

Johnny C. Horton v. State of Indiana (NFP)
49A05-1206-PC-316
Post Conviction Relief Petition. Affirms the denial of Horton’s petition for post-conviction relief.

State of Indiana v. Elvis Holtsclaw (NFP)
49A02-1108-CR-743
Criminal. Finds no abuse of discretion and affirms trial court’s suppression of breath test evidence

Michael Watson v. State of Indiana (NFP)
49A02-1206-CR-443
Criminal. Affirms 90-year sentence. Concludes that trial court did not abuse its discretion in instructing the jury that it could not disregard the law for any reason during the guilt phase of Watson’s trial and that Watson failed to show his sentence is inappropriate.

In Re the Term. of the Parent-Child Rel. of K.K.; R.I. v. The Indiana Dept. of Child Services (NFP)
18A02-1205-JT-434
Juvenile Termination of Parental Rights. Affirms order involuntarily terminating father’s parental rights.

Steven McIntyre v. State of Indiana (NFP)
28A04-1207-PC-377
Post Conviction Relief Petition. Affirms the post-conviction court’s judgment in granting the state’s motion to correct error and denies McIntyre’s request for relief.

Alexander A. Lopez v. State of Indiana (NFP)
63A04-1201-CR-35
Criminal. Affirms conviction of Class A misdemeanor dealing in marijuana.

State of Indiana v. Blake Lodde (NFP)
79A02-1206-CR-496
Criminal. Reverses the granting of the motion to suppress evidence gathered when Lodde was pulled over and remands for further proceedings.

William Holly v. State of Indiana (NFP)
52A04-1109-MI-492
Miscellaneous. Affirms trial court’s grant of summary judgment in favor of the state of Indiana.

Jesus Torres v. State of Indiana (NFP)
49A05-1205-CR-233
Criminal. Affirms the trial court’s judgment to send an audiotape back to the jury during deliberations. The tape recorded Torres’ conversations with his granddaughter about him molesting her.

Randell Vandeventer v. State of Indiana (NFP)
28A04-1205-CR-242
Criminal. Affirms Vandeventer’s conviction of three counts of Class C felony child molesting and aggregated sentence of 21 years.

Guy Cummings v. State of Indiana (NFP)
49A02-1205-CR-430
Criminal. Affirms conviction of Class D felony theft, finding evidence was sufficient.

Mark Sexton v. State of Indiana (NFP)
49A02-1204-CR-282
Criminal. Affirms Sexton’s habitual-offender enhancement after his felony convictions. Finds the trial court did not abuse its discretion in finding good cause to allow the state to file the habitual-offender information more than 10 days after the omnibus date.

Rebecca J. Bartle v. Jackson Street Investors, LLC as Assignee of Paul E. Turner (NFP)
29A05-1205-CC-246
Civil Collection. Reverses trial court’s granting Jackson Street’s motion for summary judgment and remands for further proceedings.

Benito S. Gamba, Hilda P. Gamba and Gamba Real Estate Holdings, LLC v. The Ross Group, Inc., Ticor Title Ins. Co. v. The Ross Group, Inc., Benito Gamba, Hilda Gamba and Gamba Real Est. Holdings (NFP)
45A03-1202-PL-92
Civil Plenary. Affirms in part, reverses in part and remands. Concludes trial court did not err in holding Gamba responsible for the construction cost overage but reverses on the issues of Ticor’s right to indemnification and the amount of a subcontractor lien.

Kieth McCoy v. State of Indiana (NFP)
49A02-1206-CR-451
Criminal. Dismisses McCoy’s appeal for lack of jurisdiction. Finds the denial of the motion to lift the no-contact order was not a final appealable order and McCoy has not properly preserved this issue for appeal.

Quintez Deloney v. State of Indiana (NFP)
22A01-1204-CR-153
Criminal. Affirms Deloney’s consecutive, executed sentences of eight years for Class C felony robbery and 30 years for Class A burglary.

Manuel J. Silva v. State of Indiana (NFP)
02A03-1204-CR-190
Criminal. Affirms conviction of murder, finding the evidence was sufficient to rebut Silva’s self-defense claim.

In Re The Adoption of C.H.; M.W. v. B.H. and V.H. (NFP)
85A02-1205-AD-449
Adoption. Affirms trial court’s post-hearing order concluding that M.W.’s consent to the adoption of her child, C.H., is not required under I.C. 31-19-9-8.

Robert R. Ashcraft v. State of Indiana (NFP)
46A03-1109-CR-396
Criminal. Affirms Ashcraft’s convictions and 21-year sentence for two counts of Class B felony sexual misconduct with a minor, Class C felony sexual misconduct with a minor, and Class D felony child seduction.

Paul Marcum v. State of Indiana (NFP)
89A01-1205-CR-240
Criminal. Affirms Marcum’s 27-month sentence for his conviction of Class D felony Operation a Motor Vehicle After Suspension as a Habitual Traffic Violator.
 

ADVERTISEMENT

Sponsored by
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. Hmmmmm ..... How does the good doctor's spells work on tyrants and unelected bureacrats with nearly unchecked power employing in closed hearings employing ad hoc procedures? Just askin'. ... Happy independence day to any and all out there who are "free" ... Unlike me.

  2. Today, I want to use this opportunity to tell everyone about Dr agbuza of agbuzaodera(at)gmail. com, on how he help me reunited with my husband after 2 months of divorce.My husband divorce me because he saw another woman in his office and he said to me that he is no longer in love with me anymore and decide to divorce me.I seek help from the Net and i saw good talk about Dr agbuza and i contact him and explain my problem to him and he cast a spell for me which i use to get my husband back within 2 days.am totally happy because there is no reparations and side-effect. If you need his help Email him at agbuzaodera(at)gmail. com

  3. The practitioners and judges who hail E-filing as the Saviour of the West need to contain their respective excitements. E-filing is federal court requires the practitioner to cram his motion practice into pigeonholes created by IT people. Compound motions or those seeking alternative relief are effectively barred, unless the practitioner wants to receive a tart note from some functionary admonishing about the "problem". E-filing is just another method by which courts and judges transfer their burden to practitioners, who are the really the only powerless components of the system. Of COURSE it is easier for the court to require all of its imput to conform to certain formats, but this imposition does NOT improve the quality of the practice of law and does NOT improve the ability of the practitioner to advocate for his client or to fashion pleadings that exactly conform to his client's best interests. And we should be very wary of the disingenuous pablum about the costs. The courts will find a way to stick it to the practitioner. Lake County is a VERY good example of this rapaciousness. Any one who does not believe this is invited to review the various special fees that system imposes upon practitioners- as practitioners- and upon each case ON TOP of the court costs normal in every case manually filed. Jurisprudence according to Aldous Huxley.

  4. Any attorneys who practice in federal court should be able to say the same as I can ... efiling is great. I have been doing it in fed court since it started way back. Pacer has its drawbacks, but the ability to hit an e-docket and pull up anything and everything onscreen is a huge plus for a litigator, eps the sole practitioner, who lacks a filing clerk and the paralegal support of large firms. Were I an Indiana attorney I would welcome this great step forward.

  5. Can we get full disclosure on lobbyist's payments to legislatures such as Mr Buck? AS long as there are idiots that are disrespectful of neighbors and intent on shooting fireworks every night, some kind of regulations are needed.

ADVERTISEMENT