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. Falk said “At this point, at this minute, we’ll savor this particular victory.” “It certainly is a historic week on this front,” Cockrum said. “What a delight ... “Happy Independence Day to the women of the state of Indiana,” WOW. So we broke with England for the right to "off" our preborn progeny at will, and allow the processing plant doing the dirty deeds (dirt cheap) to profit on the marketing of those "products of conception." I was completely maleducated on our nation's founding, it would seem. (But I know the ACLU is hard at work to remedy that, too.)

  2. congratulations on such balanced journalism; I also love how fetus disposal affects women's health protection, as covered by Roe...

  3. It truly sickens me every time a case is compared to mine. The Indiana Supreme Court upheld my convictions based on a finding of “hidden threats.” The term “hidden threat” never appeared until the opinion in Brewington so I had no way of knowing I was on trial for making hidden threats because Dearborn County Prosecutor F Aaron Negangard argued the First Amendment didn't protect lies. Negangard convened a grand jury to investigate me for making “over the top” and “unsubstantiated” statements about court officials, not hidden threats of violence. My indictments and convictions were so vague, the Indiana Court of Appeals made no mention of hidden threats when they upheld my convictions. Despite my public defender’s closing arguments stating he was unsure of exactly what conduct the prosecution deemed to be unlawful, Rush found that my lawyer’s trial strategy waived my right to the fundamental error of being tried for criminal defamation because my lawyer employed a strategy that attempted to take advantage of Negangard's unconstitutional criminal defamation prosecution against me. Rush’s opinion stated the prosecution argued two grounds for conviction one constitutional and one not, however the constitutional true threat “argument” consistently of only a blanket reading of subsection 1 of the intimidation statute during closing arguments, making it impossible to build any kind of defense. Of course intent was impossible for my attorney to argue because my attorney, Rush County Chief Public Defender Bryan Barrett refused to meet with me prior to trial. The record is littered with examples of where I made my concerns known to the trial judge that I didn’t know the charges against me, I did not have access to evidence, all while my public defender refused to meet with me. Special Judge Brian Hill, from Rush Superior Court, refused to address the issue with my public defender and marched me to trial without access to evidence or an understanding of the indictments against me. Just recently the Indiana Public Access Counselor found that four over four years Judge Hill has erroneously denied access to the grand jury audio from my case, the most likely reason being the transcription of the grand jury proceedings omitted portions of the official audio record. The bottom line is any intimidation case involves an action or statement that is debatably a threat of physical violence. There were no such statements in my case. The Indiana Supreme Court took partial statements I made over a period of 41 months and literally connected them with dots… to give the appearance that the statements were made within the same timeframe and then claimed a person similarly situated would find the statements intimidating while intentionally leaving out surrounding contextual factors. Even holding the similarly situated test was to be used in my case, the prosecution argued that the only intent of my public writings was to subject the “victims” to ridicule and hatred so a similarly situated jury instruction wouldn't even have applied in my case. Chief Justice Rush wrote the opinion while Rush continued to sit on a committee with one of the alleged victims in my trial and one of the judges in my divorce, just as she'd done for the previous 7+ years. All of this information, including the recent PAC opinion against the Dearborn Superior Court II can be found on my blog www.danbrewington.blogspot.com.

  4. On a related note, I offered the ICLU my cases against the BLE repeatedly, and sought their amici aid repeatedly as well. Crickets. Usually not even a response. I am guessing they do not do allegations of anti-Christian bias? No matter how glaring? I have posted on other links the amicus brief that did get filed (search this ezine, e.g., Kansas attorney), read the Thomas More Society brief to note what the ACLU ran from like vampires from garlic. An Examiner pledged to advance diversity and inclusion came right out on the record and demanded that I choose Man's law or God's law. I wonder, had I been asked to swear off Allah ... what result then, ICLU? Had I been found of bad character and fitness for advocating sexual deviance, what result then ICLU? Had I been lifetime banned for posting left of center statements denigrating the US Constitution, what result ICLU? Hey, we all know don't we? Rather Biased.

  5. It was mentioned in the article that there have been numerous CLE events to train attorneys on e-filing. I would like someone to provide a list of those events, because I have not seen any such events in east central Indiana, and since Hamilton County is one of the counties where e-filing is mandatory, one would expect some instruction in this area. Come on, people, give some instruction, not just applause!

ADVERTISEMENT