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. 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