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

facebook - twitter on Facebook & Twitter

Indiana State Bar Association

Indianapolis Bar Association

Evansville Bar Association

Allen County Bar Association

Indiana Lawyer on Facebook

facebook
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. It appears the police and prosecutors are allowed to change the rules halfway through the game to suit themselves. I am surprised that the congress has not yet eliminated the right to a trial in cases involving any type of forensic evidence. That would suit their foolish law and order police state views. I say we eliminate the statute of limitations for crimes committed by members of congress and other government employees. Of course they would never do that. They are all corrupt cowards!!!

  2. Poor Judge Brown probably thought that by slavishly serving the godz of the age her violations of 18th century concepts like due process and the rule of law would be overlooked. Mayhaps she was merely a Judge ahead of her time?

  3. in a lawyer discipline case Judge Brown, now removed, was presiding over a hearing about a lawyer accused of the supposedly heinous ethical violation of saying the words "Illegal immigrant." (IN re Barker) http://www.in.gov/judiciary/files/order-discipline-2013-55S00-1008-DI-429.pdf .... I wonder if when we compare the egregious violations of due process by Judge Brown, to her chiding of another lawyer for politically incorrectness, if there are any conclusions to be drawn about what kind of person, what kind of judge, what kind of apparatchik, is busy implementing the agenda of political correctness and making off-limits legit advocacy about an adverse party in a suit whose illegal alien status is relevant? I am just asking the question, the reader can make own conclsuion. Oh wait-- did I use the wrong adjective-- let me rephrase that, um undocumented alien?

  4. of course the bigger questions of whether or not the people want to pay for ANY bussing is off limits, due to the Supreme Court protecting the people from DEMOCRACY. Several decades hence from desegregation and bussing plans and we STILL need to be taking all this taxpayer money to combat mostly-imagined "discrimination" in the most obviously failed social program of the postwar period.

  5. You can put your photos anywhere you like... When someone steals it they know it doesn't belong to them. And, a man getting a divorce is automatically not a nice guy...? That's ridiculous. Since when is need of money a conflict of interest? That would mean that no one should have a job unless they are already financially solvent without a job... A photographer is also under no obligation to use a watermark (again, people know when a photo doesn't belong to them) or provide contact information. Hey, he didn't make it easy for me to pay him so I'll just take it! Well heck, might as well walk out of the grocery store with a cart full of food because the lines are too long and you don't find that convenient. "Only in Indiana." Oh, now you're passing judgement on an entire state... What state do you live in? I need to characterize everyone in your state as ignorant and opinionated. And the final bit of ignorance; assuming a photo anyone would want is lucky and then how much does your camera have to cost to make it a good photo, in your obviously relevant opinion?

ADVERTISEMENT