ILNews

Opinions Feb. 25, 2011

February 25, 2011
Keywords
Back to TopE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

The following opinion was posted after IL deadline Thursday
Indiana Supreme Court
Jason D. Miller v. State of Indiana
08S02-1102-CR-108
Criminal. Grants transfer and remands for re-sentencing. Summarily affirms the remainder of the Court of Appeals opinion. The trial court amended the sentence to 30 years with no time suspended. This sentence was authorized, but the transcript suggests the trial court did so because it thought the state was correct in asserting that Indiana Code Section 35-50-2-2(i) required a minimum sentence of 30 years for a conviction of Class A felony child molesting. As indicated, however, a sentence of less than 30 years could have been imposed because section 2(i) does not set a minimum sentence.

Today’s opinions
Indiana Supreme Court had posted no opinions at IL deadline.

Indiana Court of Appeals

Brian Holtzleiter v. Angela Holtzleiter
48A02-1006-DR-736
Domestic relation. Reverses denial of Brian’s petition to modify child support. He hasn’t waived his argument that he is entitled to modification of child support under the requirement that the current support obligation was 20 percent different from what would be required under the guidelines and it had been at least a year since the support order was issued. Remands for the issuance of a new child support order.

Paternity of D.L.; C.L. v. Y.B.
88A01-1002-JP-224
Juvenile. Grants rehearing to clarify the original opinion regarding the determination that the trial court erred in denying C.L.’s request to terminate his child support arrearage and affirms in all respects.

The Town of Plainfield, Indiana v. Paden Engineering Co., et al.
32A04-1005-PL-280
Civil plenary. Affirms orders granting partial summary judgment to Paden Engineering and Merchants Bonding Co. and Everest Reinsurance Co. on Plainfield’s claims for damages for breach of contract and for payment upon a performance bond. Paden has demonstrated the absence of a genuine issue of material fact and its entitlement to partial summary judgment as a matter of law upon Plainfield’s contractual claim for damages. The sureties have demonstrated the absence of a genuine issue of material fact and their entitlement to partial summary judgment as a matter of law upon Plainfield’s contractual claim for payment under a performance bond.

Monica Sexton v. State of Indiana (NFP)
30A01-1008-CR-479
Criminal. Affirms conviction of Class D felony aiding in obstruction of justice and reverses conviction of Class D felony conspiracy to commit aiding in obstruction of justice. Remands with instructions to vacate the conspiracy conviction and amend the sentencing order as appropriate.

Timothy J. Wilson v. State of Indiana (NFP)
49A02-1007-CR-725
Criminal. Affirms convictions of and 20-year sentence for Class B felony incest, Class D felony dissemination of a matter harmful to a minor, and Class A misdemeanor contributing to the delinquency of a minor.

Jeffery M. Ogle v. State of Indiana (NFP)
09A02-1007-CR-779
Criminal. Affirms conviction of Class D felony domestic battery and vacates Class B misdemeanor disorderly conduct conviction. Remands for a corrected sentencing order.

Carl S. Howard v. State of Indiana (NFP)
90A04-1010-CR-615
Criminal. Affirms sentence following guilty plea to Class D felony receiving stolen property.

C.C. v. State of Indiana (NFP)
71A03-1008-JV-440
Juvenile. Affirms placement of C.C. in the Department of Correction.

David Pemberton v. State of Indiana (NFP)
49A05-1008-CR-516
Criminal. Affirms denial of motion requesting jail time credit in the amount of 769 days.

Knitcraft Corporation v. Raleigh Limited, Inc. (NFP)
49A04-1007-CC-397
Civil collections. Affirms judgment in favor of Raleigh in Knitcraft’s complaint for damages for breach of contract after it cancelled an order from Knitcraft.

Sayburt Huff v. State of Indiana (NFP)
71A03-1006-CR-392
Criminal. Affirms conviction of Class A felony voluntary manslaughter.

D.P.T. Inc., et al. v. Western Union Financial Services (NFP)
49A04-1007-CC-426
Civil collections. Affirms summary judgment for Western Union in its suit against D.P.T. after someone used D.P.T.’s Western Union account to make several fraudulent transfers.

Thomas J. Towne v. Cindy Towne and State of Indiana (NFP)
68A05-1009-DR-585
Domestic relation. Affirms order finding Thomas in contempt for failure to pay child support to Cindy. Remands with instructions to amend the trial court order.

Indiana Tax Court had posted no opinions at IL deadline.
 

ADVERTISEMENT

Sponsored by
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. Some are above the law in Indiana. Some lined up with Lodges have controlled power in the state since the 1920s when the Klan ruled Indiana. Consider the comments at this post and note the international h.q. in Indianapolis. http://www.theindianalawyer.com/human-trafficking-rising-in-indiana/PARAMS/article/42468. Brave journalists need to take this child torturing, above the law and antimarriage cult on just like The Globe courageously took on Cardinal Law. Are there any brave Hoosier journalists?

  2. I am nearing 66 years old..... I have no interest in contacting anyone. All I need to have is a nationality....a REAL Birthday...... the place U was born...... my soul will never be at peace. I have lived my life without identity.... if anyone can help me please contact me.

  3. This is the dissent discussed in the comment below. See comments on that story for an amazing discussion of likely judicial corruption of some kind, the rejection of the rule of law at the very least. http://www.theindianalawyer.com/justices-deny-transfer-to-child-custody-case/PARAMS/article/42774#comment

  4. That means much to me, thank you. My own communion, to which I came in my 30's from a protestant evangelical background, refuses to so affirm me, the Bishop's courtiers all saying, when it matters, that they defer to the state, and trust that the state would not be wrong as to me. (LIttle did I know that is the most common modernist catholic position on the state -- at least when the state acts consistent with the philosophy of the democrat party). I asked my RCC pastor to stand with me before the Examiners after they demanded that I disavow God's law on the record .... he refused, saying the Bishop would not allow it. I filed all of my file in the open in federal court so the Bishop's men could see what had been done ... they refused to look. (But the 7th Cir and federal judge Theresa Springmann gave me the honor of admission after so reading, even though ISC had denied me, rendering me a very rare bird). Such affirmation from a fellow believer as you have done here has been rare for me, and that dearth of solidarity, and the economic pain visited upon my wife and five children, have been the hardest part of the struggle. They did indeed banish me, for life, and so, in substance did the the Diocese, which treated me like a pariah, but thanks to this ezine ... and this is simply amazing to me .... because of this ezine I am not silenced. This ezine allowing us to speak to the corruption that the former chief "justice" left behind, yet embedded in his systems when he retired ... the openness to discuss that corruption (like that revealed in the recent whistleblowing dissent by courageous Justice David and fresh breath of air Chief Justice Rush,) is a great example of the First Amendment at work. I will not be silenced as long as this tree falling in the wood can be heard. The Hoosier Judiciary has deep seated problems, generational corruption, ideological corruption. Many cases demonstrate this. It must be spotlighted. The corrupted system has no hold on me now, none. I have survived their best shots. It is now my time to not be silent. To the Glory of God, and for the good of man's law. (It almost always works that way as to the true law, as I explained the bar examiners -- who refused to follow even their own statutory law and violated core organic law when banishing me for life -- actually revealing themselves to be lawless.)

  5. to answer your questions, you would still be practicing law and its very sad because we need lawyers like you to stand up for the little guy who have no voice. You probably were a threat to them and they didnt know how to handle the truth and did not want anyone to "rock the boat" so instead of allowing you to keep praticing they banished you, silenced you , the cowards that they are.

ADVERTISEMENT