ILNews

Opinions Feb. 17, 2012

February 17, 2012
Keywords
Back to TopE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

The following opinions were posted after IL deadline Thursday:
Indiana Supreme Court

Amir H. Sanjari v. State of Indiana
20S03-1105-CR-268
Criminal. Holds that Indiana Code Section 35-46-1-5 permits a separate Class D felony conviction for nonsupport of each dependent child, but only one such offense may be enhanced to a Class C felony where the unpaid support for one or more of such children is $15,000 or more. Orders one conviction of nonsupport of a dependent as a Class C felony conviction entered as to one child and one Class D felony entered as to the other child and that Sanjari be resentenced accordingly.

Indiana Tax Court
Tipton County Health Care Foundation, Inc, f/k/a Tipton County Memorial Hospital Foundation v. Tipton County Assessor
49T10-1101-TA-6
Tax. Affirms that the Indiana Board of Tax Review properly determined that the Tipton County Health Care Foundation Inc. failed to raise a prima facie case that its assisted living facility is exempt from property tax under Indiana Code 6-1.1-10-16. Given that the record in this case simply does not indicate whether Miller’s Health System – which operates the facility – has a charitable purpose or a profit motive, the court agrees with the Indiana board’s finding that the foundation failed to raise a prima facie case that Autumnwood is entitled to a charitable purposes exemption.

Friday’s opinions
7th Circuit Court of Appeals

United States of America v. Samuel T. Henzel
11-2293
U.S. District Court, Southern District of Indiana, Indianapolis Division, Judge Tanya Walton Pratt.
Criminal. Affirms 135-month sentence imposed following guilty plea to traveling across state lines with the intent to engage in illicit sexual conduct. The District Court miscalculated the imprisonment range favorably to Henzel, and the sentence imposed is actually within the correctly calculated range.

Indiana Supreme Court and Indiana Tax Court had posted no opinions at IL deadline.

Indiana Court of Appeals

Barry Cook v. State of Indiana (NFP)
27A05-1107-CR-402
Criminal. Reverses conviction of Class B felony possession of cocaine and remands with instructions.

Todd A. Gray, Jr. v. State of Indiana (NFP)
71A05-1106-CR-308
Criminal. Affirms conviction of Class B felony attempted robbery.

Robert Kemp v. State of Indiana (NFP)
71A03-1107-CR-338
Criminal. Affirms convictions of Class A felonies rape and criminal deviate conduct.
 

ADVERTISEMENT

Sponsored by
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. Just an aside, but regardless of the outcome, I 'm proud of Judge William Hughes. He was the original magistrate on the Home place issue. He ruled for Home Place, and was primaried by Brainard for it. Their tool Poindexter failed to unseat Hughes, who won support for his honesty and courage throughout the county, and he was reelected Judge of Hamilton County's Superior Court. You can still stand for something and survive. Thanks, Judge Hughes!

  2. CCHP's real accomplishment is the 2015 law signed by Gov Pence that basically outlaws any annexation that is forced where a 65% majority of landowners in the affected area disagree. Regardless of whether HP wins or loses, the citizens of Indiana will not have another fiasco like this. The law Gov Pence signed is a direct result of this malgovernance.

  3. I gave tempparry guardship to a friend of my granddaughter in 2012. I went to prison. I had custody. My daughter went to prison to. We are out. My daughter gave me custody but can get her back. She was not order to give me custody . but now we want granddaughter back from friend. She's 14 now. What rights do we have

  4. This sure is not what most who value good governance consider the Rule of Law to entail: "In a letter dated March 2, which Brizzi forwarded to IBJ, the commission dismissed the grievance “on grounds that there is not reasonable cause to believe that you are guilty of misconduct.”" Yet two month later reasonable cause does exist? (Or is the commission forging ahead, the need for reasonable belief be damned? -- A seeming violation of the Rules of Profession Ethics on the part of the commission) Could the rule of law theory cause one to believe that an explanation is in order? Could it be that Hoosier attorneys live under Imperial Law (which is also a t-word that rhymes with infamy) in which the Platonic guardians can do no wrong and never owe the plebeian class any explanation for their powerful actions. (Might makes it right?) Could this be a case of politics directing the commission, as celebrated IU Mauer Professor (the late) Patrick Baude warned was happening 20 years ago in his controversial (whisteblowing) ethics lecture on a quite similar topic: http://www.repository.law.indiana.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1498&context=ilj

  5. I have a case presently pending cert review before the SCOTUS that reveals just how Indiana regulates the bar. I have been denied licensure for life for holding the wrong views and questioning the grand inquisitors as to their duties as to state and federal constitutional due process. True story: https://www.scribd.com/doc/299040839/2016Petitionforcert-to-SCOTUS Shorter, Amici brief serving to frame issue as misuse of govt licensure: https://www.scribd.com/doc/312841269/Thomas-More-Society-Amicus-Brown-v-Ind-Bd-of-Law-Examiners

ADVERTISEMENT