Opinions Feb. 25, 2011

February 25, 2011
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
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
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.
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.
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)
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)
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)
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)
Criminal. Affirms sentence following guilty plea to Class D felony receiving stolen property.

C.C. v. State of Indiana (NFP)
Juvenile. Affirms placement of C.C. in the Department of Correction.

David Pemberton v. State of Indiana (NFP)
Criminal. Affirms denial of motion requesting jail time credit in the amount of 769 days.

Knitcraft Corporation v. Raleigh Limited, Inc. (NFP)
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)
Criminal. Affirms conviction of Class A felony voluntary manslaughter.

D.P.T. Inc., et al. v. Western Union Financial Services (NFP)
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)
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.


Sponsored by
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. Especially I would like to see all the republican voting patriotic good ole boys to stop and understand that the wars they have been volunteering for all along (especially the past decade at least) have not been for God & Jesus etc no far from it unless you think George Washington's face on the US dollar is god (and we know many do). When I saw the movie about Chris Kyle, I thought wow how many Hoosiers are just like this guy, out there taking orders to do the nasty on the designated bad guys, sometimes bleeding and dying, sometimes just serving and coming home to defend a system that really just views them as reliable cannon fodder. Maybe if the Christians of the red states would stop volunteering for the imperial legions and begin collecting welfare instead of working their butts off, there would be a change in attitude from the haughty professorial overlords that tell us when democracy is allowed and when it isn't. To come home from guarding the borders of the sandbox just to hear if they want the government to protect this country's borders then they are racists and bigots. Well maybe the professorial overlords should gird their own loins for war and fight their own battles in the sandbox. We can see what kind of system this really is from lawsuits like this and we can understand who it really serves. NOT US.... I mean what are all you Hoosiers waving the flag for, the right of the president to start wars of aggression to benefit the Saudis, the right of gay marriage, the right for illegal immigrants to invade our country, and the right of the ACLU to sue over displays of Baby Jesus? The right of the 1 percenters to get richer, the right of zombie banks to use taxpayer money to stay out of bankruptcy? The right of Congress to start a pissing match that could end in WWIII in Ukraine? None of that crud benefits us. We should be like the Amish. You don't have to go far from this farcical lawsuit to find the wise ones, they're in the buggies in the streets not far away....

  2. Moreover, we all know that the well heeled ACLU has a litigation strategy of outspending their adversaries. And, with the help of the legal system well trained in secularism, on top of the genuinely and admittedly secular 1st amendment, they have the strategic high ground. Maybe Christians should begin like the Amish to withdraw their services from the state and the public and become themselves a "people who shall dwell alone" and foster their own kind and let the other individuals and money interests fight it out endlessly in court. I mean, if "the people" don't see how little the state serves their interests, putting Mammon first at nearly every turn, then maybe it is time they wake up and smell the coffee. Maybe all the displays of religiosity by American poohbahs on down the decades have been a mask of piety that concealed their own materialistic inclinations. I know a lot of patriotic Christians don't like that notion but I entertain it more and more all the time.

  3. If I were a judge (and I am not just a humble citizen) I would be inclined to make a finding that there was no real controversy and dismiss them. Do we allow a lawsuit every time someone's feelings are hurt now? It's preposterous. The 1st amendment has become a sword in the hands of those who actually want to suppress religious liberty according to their own backers' conception of how it will serve their own private interests. The state has a duty of impartiality to all citizens to spend its judicial resources wisely and flush these idiotic suits over Nativity Scenes down the toilet where they belong... however as Christians we should welcome them as they are the very sort of persecution that separates the sheep from the wolves.

  4. What about the single mothers trying to protect their children from mentally abusive grandparents who hide who they truly are behind mounds and years of medication and have mentally abused their own children to the point of one being in jail and the other was on drugs. What about trying to keep those children from being subjected to the same abuse they were as a child? I can understand in the instance about the parent losing their right and the grandparent having raised the child previously! But not all circumstances grant this being OKAY! some of us parents are trying to protect our children and yes it is our God given right to make those decisions for our children as adults!! This is not just black and white and I will fight every ounce of this to get denied

  5. Mr Smith the theory of Christian persecution in Indiana has been run by the Indiana Supreme Court and soundly rejected there is no such thing according to those who rule over us. it is a thought crime to think otherwise.