ILNews

Opinions Dec. 31, 2012

January 2, 2013
Keywords
Back to TopE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

No Indiana Court of Appeals, Indiana Supreme Court or Indiana Tax Court opinions were released on Wednesday. No Indiana opinions were released before IL deadline Wednesday by the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals.

Dec. 31, 2012
Indiana Court of Appeals
Indiana Public Employee Retirement Fund v. Paul Bryson
49A04-1201-MI-2
Miscellaneous. Affirms original opinion that Bryson’s on-duty injury was a “covered impairment” making him eligible for Class 1 impairment disability benefits even though he had a pre-existing condition.

Damon Ray Bowers v. State of Indiana
55A04-1204-CR-180
Criminal. Affirms trial court’s denial of motion to suppress evidence gathered at a traffic stop and remands for further proceedings. Finds the minimal intrusion into Bowers’ activity caused by the brief traffic stop was justified based on the police having reasonable suspicion that he was intoxicated.

Lisa Svenstrup v. Thomas Svenstrup
29A02-1206-DR-452
Domestic relation. Affirms trial court denial of mother’s petition for allocation of college expenses, holding that where mother petitioned for educational support prior to a child’s emancipation age which was denied by a trial court, a child support order is subject to modification upon the showing of changed circumstances so substantial and continuing as to make terms of the existing order unreasonable.

Israel Cruz v. State of Indiana
49A02-1204-CR-301
Criminal. Reverses Cruz’s conviction of operating a vehicle while suspended as a habitual traffic violator. Rules that even though there is ample evidence that Cruz knew he had never received a license and that he was not supposed to drive because he was unlicensed, the state did not charge him with driving without having received a license. Instead, it chose to charge him with driving while suspended but did not provide sufficient evidence beyond a reasonable doubt that Cruz knew he was suspended.  

Albert Jackson Counce v. State of Indiana (NFP)
15A05-1206-CR-29
Criminal. Affirms 20-year sentence for conviction of Class B felony robbery resulting in injury.
 
In Re the Paternity of Z.H.; S.E. v. C.H. (NFP)
82A05-1205-JP-257
Juvenile/parenting. Dismisses appeal of order for parties to participate in treatment, counseling and therapy.

Dandre Matlock v. State of Indiana (NFP)
79A02-1205-CR-465
Criminal. Affirms convictions of dealing and possession of marijuana and cocaine, maintaining a common nuisance and two counts of neglect of a dependent.
 
Roy G. Lewis v. State of Indiana (NFP)
43A05-1207-CR-347
Criminal. Affirms revocation of probation and execution of suspended sentence for Class D felony operating a vehicle while intoxicated.

Damon Gee v. State of Indiana (NFP)
27A02-1203-CR-257
Criminal. Affirms convictions of Class B felony possession of a firearm by a serious violent felon and Class D felony possession of a stolen vehicle.   

In the Matter of the Term. of the Parent-Child Rel. of A.D.; and M.D. v. Indiana Dept. of Child Services (NFP)
71A03-1204-JT-204
Juvenile. Affirms termination of parental rights.
 
Micha Seymour v. State of Indiana (NFP)
49A02-1206-CR-489
Criminal. Affirms in part, reverses in part and remands with instructions to vacate a habitual offender adjudication and vacate the 30-year sentence enhancement on a conviction of attempted murder.

Arthur J. Bryant v. State of Indiana (NFP)
31A04-1109-PC-542
Post-conviction relief/rehearing. Reaffirms denial of post-conviction relief.

In Re the Paternity of K.H., S.E. v. C.H. (NFP)
82A01-1205-JP-222
Juvenile. Dismisses appeal of order that parties participate in treatment, counseling and therapy.

Roy Bessler v. State of Indiana (NFP)
15A04-1201-CR-37
Criminal. Affirms conviction and 30-year sentence on two counts each of Class A and Class B felony dealing in cocaine.  

George R. Clark v. State of Indiana (NFP)
59A05-1205-CR-253
Criminal. Affirms conviction of Class A misdemeanor resisting law enforcement.

Francis McDonnell, M.D. v. Stacy Wissel, as Trustee of the Bankruptcy Estate of Roy L. Harris and Anita K. Harris (NFP)
82A04-1202-CT-56
Civil tort. Affirms trial court determination of liability and interest but reverses prejudgment interest award.

James L. Morgan v. State of Indiana (NFP)
88A01-1206-CR-254
Criminal. Affirms trial court order imposing sanctions after revocation of probation.  

Kimberly A. Harrison and Christine G. Portell v. Yale Rice, III, as Trustee of the Yale Rice, Jr. Living Trust, et al. (NFP)
06A01-1203-TR-126
Trust. Affirms trial court approval of final accounting and finding of no breach of fiduciary duty by the trustee.

Paulette Petkovich, et al. v. Prime Contractors Co., Inc. (NFP)
64A03-1203-MF-102
Mortgage foreclosure/rehearing. Affirms prior ruling in all respects, again denying Prime’s request for appellate attorney fees.

Joseph Ward v. State of Indiana (NFP)
89A01-1206-CR-277
Criminal. Affirms 34-year sentence for convictions of Class A felony child molestation and Class C felony child exploitation.
 
Joseph Rushing v. State of Indiana (NFP)
27A02-1201-PC-91
Post-conviction relief. Affirms denial of post-conviction relief on child molestation convictions.

Job Steel Corp, and Lisco, Inc. v. Board of Zoning Appeals of the Town of Burns Harbor and the Plan Commission of the Town of Burns Harbor (NFP)
64A05-1205-PL-245
Civil plenary. Affirms the Board of Zoning Appeals’ denial of an application for a special exception to operate a truck terminal.

Marvin Dewayne Davey v. State of Indiana (NFP)
10A01-1205-CR-229
Criminal. Affirms revocation of probation and order Davey serve remainder of sentence in the Department of Correction.

Joseph Laich, III v. State of Indiana (NFP)
45A03-1205-CR-206
Criminal. Affirms conviction of Class B felony aggravated battery.

T.S. v. State of Indiana (NFP)
49A04-1204-JV-213
Juvenile. Affirms commitment of T.S. to the Department of Correction for an indeterminate time at a juvenile correctional facility after adjudication as a delinquent for an act that would be Class C felony battery with a deadly weapon if committed by an adult.  

Ronald Rostochak v. State of Indiana (NFP)
92A05-1112-CR-688
Criminal. Affirms conviction and sentence of 25 years executed for a conviction of Class A felony child molestation.

Jason Castillo v. State of Indiana (NFP)
34A04-1204-CR-212
Criminal. Affirms conviction and six-year sentence for convictions of Class C felony operating a motor vehicle after lifetime suspension and Class A misdemeanor operating a vehicle with an alcohol concentration equivalent of at least 0.15 percent.

Bradley C. Taylor v. State of Indiana (NFP)
35A02-1204-CR-348
Criminal. Affirms conviction of Class C felony child molestation.

Shawn D. Jaco v. State of Indiana (NFP)
82A01-1203-CR-104
Criminal. Affirms convictions of Class B felony aggravated battery and Class C felony criminal confinement.

Demaris Snyder Wehr, Timothy John Snyder, Terence Glen Snyder and Daniel Owen Snyder v. Thomas Price, II, individually and as the named executor of the estate of Nilah Snyder, et al. (NFP)
89A04-1202-PL-76
Civil plenary. Affirms trial court judgment on pleadings concluding that beneficiaries had not breached any contract or tortiously interfered with any inheritance.

Townsend H. Porter, Jr., Townsend Porter Revocable Trust, and Brian H. Merritt v. 1st Source Bank (NFP)
71A03-1205-CC-236
Civil collection. Affirms trial court’s denial of Porter’s request for exemption from proceedings supplemental.

 

ADVERTISEMENT

Sponsored by
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. 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.

  2. 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?

  3. 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

  4. Justice has finally been served. So glad that Dr. Ley can finally sleep peacefully at night knowing the truth has finally come to the surface.

  5. While this right is guaranteed by our Constitution, it has in recent years been hampered by insurance companies, i.e.; the practice of the plaintiff's own insurance company intervening in an action and filing a lien against any proceeds paid to their insured. In essence, causing an additional financial hurdle for a plaintiff to overcome at trial in terms of overall award. In a very real sense an injured party in exercise of their right to trial by jury may be the only party in a cause that would end up with zero compensation.

ADVERTISEMENT