ILNews

Opinions Feb. 19, 2013

February 19, 2013
Keywords
Back to TopE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

Indiana Supreme Court
Ronald B. Hawkins v. State of Indiana
20S03-1208-DR-499
Domestic relation. Vacates convictions of two counts of Class C felony nonsupport of a dependent where Hawkins was tried in absentia. The record indicates that Hawkins’ failure to appear at trial did not constitute a waiver of his right to counsel. Remands for a new trial.

Indiana Court of Appeals
Ernesto Roberto Ramirez v. State of Indiana (NFP)
45A05-1204-CR-224
Criminal. Affirms convictions of murder and Class D felony criminal gang activity.

Brandon E. Klein v. State of Indiana (NFP)

79A02-1201-CR-38
Criminal. Affirms convictions and sentence for Class D felony intimidation and Class A misdemeanor invasion of privacy.

In the Matter of the Term. of the Parent-Child Rel. of S.K.W. and D.L.W.J.: D.W. v. Indiana Dept. of Child Services and Lake County Court Appointed Special Advocate (NFP)
45A03-1206-JT-293
Juvenile. Affirms termination of parental rights.

Thomas Clements v. State of Indiana (NFP)
20A03-1205-CR-200
Criminal. Reverses denial of verified petition to limit access to criminal history and vacates the trial court order.

Olie McNeal v. State of Indiana (NFP)
49A05-1207-CR-364
Criminal. Affirms conviction of Class A misdemeanor battery.

Megan Parker v. State of Indiana (NFP)

49A05-1206-CR-327
Criminal. Affirms conviction of carrying a handgun without a license as a Class A misdemeanor.

Bradley Franks v. State of Indiana (NFP)
49A05-1205-CR-256
Criminal. Affirms revocation of probation.

Daniel Miller v. State of Indiana (NFP)
88A01-1205-CR-228
Criminal. Affirms sentence following guilty plea to Class A felony burglary and Class B felony rape.

Tyrone Frazier v. State of Indiana (NFP)

49A02-1202-PC-113
Post conviction. Affirms denial of petition for post-conviction relief.

Metropolitan Property & Casualty Ins. Co. v. Gary Darland (NFP)
53A01-1204-PL-179
Civil plenary. Affirms a covered loss under the MetLife policy occurred and the trial court properly awarded Darland $42,370 for the total loss of a boat and trailer. Reverses loss of use damages to Darland for the 2010 boating season.

Ricky L. Flake v. State of Indiana (NFP)
73A05-1207-CR-356
Criminal. Affirms sentence following guilty plea to Class D felony operating a vehicle after suspension.

Luke White v. State of Indiana (NFP)
49A02-1206-CR-477
Criminal. Affirms convictions of Class B felony aggravated battery and Class C felony battery.

Anthony E. Thomas v. State of Indiana (NFP)

20A03-1208-CR-377
Criminal. Affirms revocation of placement in work release center.

The Indiana Tax Court issued no opinions by IL deadline. The 7th Circuit Court of Appeals posted no Indiana decisions by IL deadline.
 

ADVERTISEMENT

Sponsored by
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. He TIL team,please zap this comment too since it was merely marking a scammer and not reflecting on the story. Thanks, happy Monday, keep up the fine work.

  2. You just need my social security number sent to your Gmail account to process then loan, right? Beware scammers indeed.

  3. The appellate court just said doctors can be sued for reporting child abuse. The most dangerous form of child abuse with the highest mortality rate of any form of child abuse (between 6% and 9% according to the below listed studies). Now doctors will be far less likely to report this form of dangerous child abuse in Indiana. If you want to know what this is, google the names Lacey Spears, Julie Conley (and look at what happened when uninformed judges returned that child against medical advice), Hope Ybarra, and Dixie Blanchard. Here is some really good reporting on what this allegation was: http://media.star-telegram.com/Munchausenmoms/ Here are the two research papers: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/0145213487900810 http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0145213403000309 25% of sibling are dead in that second study. 25%!!! Unbelievable ruling. Chilling. Wrong.

  4. Mr. Levin says that the BMV engaged in misconduct--that the BMV (or, rather, someone in the BMV) knew Indiana motorists were being overcharged fees but did nothing to correct the situation. Such misconduct, whether engaged in by one individual or by a group, is called theft (defined as knowingly or intentionally exerting unauthorized control over the property of another person with the intent to deprive the other person of the property's value or use). Theft is a crime in Indiana (as it still is in most of the civilized world). One wonders, then, why there have been no criminal prosecutions of BMV officials for this theft? Government misconduct doesn't occur in a vacuum. An individual who works for or oversees a government agency is responsible for the misconduct. In this instance, somebody (or somebodies) with the BMV, at some time, knew Indiana motorists were being overcharged. What's more, this person (or these people), even after having the error of their ways pointed out to them, did nothing to fix the problem. Instead, the overcharges continued. Thus, the taxpayers of Indiana are also on the hook for the millions of dollars in attorneys fees (for both sides; the BMV didn't see fit to avail itself of the services of a lawyer employed by the state government) that had to be spent in order to finally convince the BMV that stealing money from Indiana motorists was a bad thing. Given that the BMV official(s) responsible for this crime continued their misconduct, covered it up, and never did anything until the agency reached an agreeable settlement, it seems the statute of limitations for prosecuting these folks has not yet run. I hope our Attorney General is paying attention to this fiasco and is seriously considering prosecution. Indiana, the state that works . . . for thieves.

  5. I'm glad that attorney Carl Hayes, who represented the BMV in this case, is able to say that his client "is pleased to have resolved the issue". Everyone makes mistakes, even bureaucratic behemoths like Indiana's BMV. So to some extent we need to be forgiving of such mistakes. But when those mistakes are going to cost Indiana taxpayers millions of dollars to rectify (because neither plaintiff's counsel nor Mr. Hayes gave freely of their services, and the BMV, being a state-funded agency, relies on taxpayer dollars to pay these attorneys their fees), the agency doesn't have a right to feel "pleased to have resolved the issue". One is left wondering why the BMV feels so pleased with this resolution? The magnitude of the agency's overcharges might suggest to some that, perhaps, these errors were more than mere oversight. Could this be why the agency is so "pleased" with this resolution? Will Indiana motorists ever be assured that the culture of incompetence (if not worse) that the BMV seems to have fostered is no longer the status quo? Or will even more "overcharges" and lawsuits result? It's fairly obvious who is really "pleased to have resolved the issue", and it's not Indiana's taxpayers who are on the hook for the legal fees generated in these cases.

ADVERTISEMENT