ILNews

Opinions Feb. 27, 2012

February 27, 2012
Keywords
Back to TopE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

The 7th Circuit Court of Appeals. Indiana Supreme Court and Indiana Tax Court had no opinions at IL deadline.

Indiana Court of Appeals

Arc Construction Management, LLC, and Alan Muncy v. John Zelenak and Cecilia Zelenak
10A01-1106-CT-247
Civil Tort. Affirms and remands case involving a home construction lawsuit, finding that trial court didn’t err in denying summary judgment on the former homeowners’ claim of breach of implied warranty of habitability.

Augustus Mendenhall v. State of Indiana
29A02-1104-CR-353
Criminal. Reverses trial court on grounds that a Class B felony conviction of aggravated battery and Class A felony conviction for robbery resulting in serious bodily injury violate Indiana’s probation against double jeopardy. Remands with instructions to reduce robbery conviction to a Class C felony.

Timothy Jester v. State of Indiana (NFP)
02A05-1108-CR-495
Criminal. Affirms Class B misdemeanor public intoxication conviction, finding evidence was sufficient to support the conviction and the court will not reweight evidence.

N.L. v. State of Indiana (NFP)
52A02-1110-JV-1051
Juvenile. Affirms juvenile’s commitment to the Indiana Department of Correction, finding that the court did not abuse its discretion in that placement because of N.L.’s growing juvenile history, conduct while on probation and failure to participate in services offered.

David Fonseca v. State of Indiana (NFP)
49A02-1107-CR-605
Criminal. Affirms Class A misdemeanor battery conviction, finding evidence was sufficient to support the conviction.
 
Jennifer Howard v. State of Indiana (NFP)
49A02-1108-CR-684
Criminal. Affirms Class A misdemeanor domestic battery conviction, finding that evidence was sufficient to support her conviction and the court will not reweight evidence.
 
Donald C. Newlin v. State of Indiana (NFP)

32A01-1109-CR-444
Criminal. Affirms the trial court’s finding that probation revocation sentences were required to be served consecutively and that Donald C. Newlin wasn’t entitled to credit for time served in Putnam County. Appellate court also held trial court didn’t abuse its discretion in ordering Newlin to serve entire previously suspended sentence.
 

ADVERTISEMENT

Sponsored by
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. Indiana's seatbelt law is not punishable as a crime. It is an infraction. Apparently some of our Circuit judges have deemed settled law inapplicable if it fails to fit their litmus test of political correctness. Extrapolating to redefine terms of behavior in a violation of immigration law to the entire body of criminal law leaves a smorgasbord of opportunity for judicial mischief.

  2. I wonder if $10 diversions for failure to wear seat belts are considered moral turpitude in federal immigration law like they are under Indiana law? Anyone know?

  3. What a fine article, thank you! I can testify firsthand and by detailed legal reports (at end of this note) as to the dire consequences of rejecting this truth from the fine article above: "The inclusion and expansion of this right [to jury] in Indiana’s Constitution is a clear reflection of our state’s intention to emphasize the importance of every Hoosier’s right to make their case in front of a jury of their peers." Over $20? Every Hoosier? Well then how about when your very vocation is on the line? How about instead of a jury of peers, one faces a bevy of political appointees, mini-czars, who care less about due process of the law than the real czars did? Instead of trial by jury, trial by ideological ordeal run by Orwellian agents? Well that is built into more than a few administrative law committees of the Ind S.Ct., and it is now being weaponized, as is revealed in articles posted at this ezine, to root out post moderns heresies like refusal to stand and pledge allegiance to all things politically correct. My career was burned at the stake for not so saluting, but I think I was just one of the early logs. Due, at least in part, to the removal of the jury from bar admission and bar discipline cases, many more fires will soon be lit. Perhaps one awaits you, dear heretic? Oh, at that Ind. article 12 plank about a remedy at law for every damage done ... ah, well, the founders evidently meant only for those damages done not by the government itself, rabid statists that they were. (Yes, that was sarcasm.) My written reports available here: Denied petition for cert (this time around): http://tinyurl.com/zdmawmw Denied petition for cert (from the 2009 denial and five year banishment): http://tinyurl.com/zcypybh Related, not written by me: Amicus brief: http://tinyurl.com/hvh7qgp

  4. Justice has finally been served. So glad that Dr. Ley can finally sleep peacefully at night knowing the truth has finally come to the surface.

  5. While this right is guaranteed by our Constitution, it has in recent years been hampered by insurance companies, i.e.; the practice of the plaintiff's own insurance company intervening in an action and filing a lien against any proceeds paid to their insured. In essence, causing an additional financial hurdle for a plaintiff to overcome at trial in terms of overall award. In a very real sense an injured party in exercise of their right to trial by jury may be the only party in a cause that would end up with zero compensation.

ADVERTISEMENT