ILNews

Opinions Jan. 27, 2014

January 27, 2014
Keywords
Back to TopE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

7th Circuit Court of Appeals
The following opinion was issued after IL deadline Friday.

Annex Books Inc, et al. v. City of Indianapolis
13-1500.
Civil. Reverses District Court order upholding a city of Indianapolis ordinance limiting the hours of adult bookstores to 10 a.m. to midnight, Monday-Saturday. Remands to the District Court with instructions to enter injunction against enforcement of the closure ordinance. Finds that in light of prior Supreme Court jurisprudence, the city cannot restrict the distribution of material that might be objectionable but is not obscene. The city’s argument that the closure ordinance had reduced instances of armed robberies near the bookstore locations was “weak as a statistical matter,” the court ruled.

Indiana Court of Appeals
Frank Jacobs v. State of Indiana
49A04-1304-CR-183
Criminal. Affirmed in part, reversed in part and remanded. Orders trial court to vacate a conviction of Class C felony criminal confinement as double jeopardy to a conviction in the same case of Class B felony criminal deviate conduct.

Quanardel Wells v. State of Indiana
49A02-1306-CR-550
Criminal. Affirms conviction of two counts of Class A felony criminal deviate conduct, one count of Class A felony rape, two counts of Class B felony criminal deviate conduct, one count of Class B felony criminal confinement, one count of Class C felony criminal confinement, and one count of Class D felony strangulation. Wells’ appeal of a denial of his motion to sever the charges from different incidents was a request to reweigh a decision affirming denial the Court of Appeals made on interlocutory appeal, the court ruled. His 100-year sentence was not inappropriate based on Wells’ character and the nature of the offenses.  

Thomas D. Dillman v. State of Indiana
53A04-1306-CR-289
Criminal. Reverses denial of motion to release a cash bond and remands to the trial court for refund of a $250 cash bond. Because Dillman’s bond was posted under I.C. 35-33-8-3.2(a)(1) in 2003, the court was not authorized at that time to retain cash bonds for any purpose. A statutory change in 2006 allowed courts to retain cash bonds for purposes including paying for publicly paid costs of representation, fines, costs, fees or restitution upon conviction.

In Re The Paternity of C.J.A.: G.C. (Mother) v. T.A. (Father)
79A02-1302-JP-137
Juvenile paternity. Reverses portion of trial court’s order that automatically grants father primary custody of minor child if mother failed to move back to Indiana. Finds that order making custody modification automatic violates the state’s child custody modification statute, Indiana Code section 31-14-13-6. Judge Elaine Brown dissents, arguing because the trial court’s order was not a final judgment, the COA did not have jurisdiction over this appeal.

Ruben Rosales v. State of Indiana
48A02-1303-CR-229
Criminal. Affirms conviction for attempted murder, a Class A felony. Rules the trial court’s failure to correctly instruct the jury about accomplice liability was not a fundamental error and the evidence is more than sufficient that Rosales was the principal in an attack that led to the attempted murder charge. Judge Terry Crone dissents arguing the error is fundamental because it is not clear whether the jury convicted Rosales as the principal or as the accomplice.  

Brandon McManomy v. State of Indiana (NFP)
65A01-1302-CR-62
Criminal. Affirms conviction of Class A felony attempted murder.

David D. Darr v. State of Indiana (NFP)
89A04-1307-CR-324
Criminal. Affirms conviction of Class D felony dealing in a sawed-off shotgun.

Daniel Lee Pierce v. State of Indiana (NFP)
78A05-1305-CR-211
Criminal. Reverses conviction on one count of Class A felony child molesting, four counts of Class C felony child molesting, and two counts of Class D felony child molesting, and remands for a new trial. Judge John Baker dissents and would not grant a new trial.

Ventriss R. Hulitt v. State of Indiana (NFP)
45A03-1302-CR-30
Criminal. Affirms conviction of Class A felony child molestation.

In Re: The Marriage of Terri L. Potter and Brent D. Potter: Terri L. Potter v. Brent D. Potter (NFP)
11A01-1304-DR-229
Domestic relation. Affirms denial of mother T.P.’s motion to correct error regarding property division and child support entered in a dissolution of marriage action.

Adam Sullender v. State of Indiana (NFP)
20A05-1308-CR-390
Criminal. Affirms denial of motion to correct erroneous sentence on a conviction of Class C felony battery resulting in serious bodily injury.

Lauren Hurse v. State of Indiana (NFP)
49A02-1307-CR-563
Criminal. Affirms conviction of Class B misdemeanor disorderly conduct.

Nita Trott-Fluty v. State of Indiana (NFP)
82A05-1306-CR-290
Criminal. Affirms conviction of Class D felony and Class A misdemeanor charges of resisting law enforcement and Class B misdemeanor disorderly conduct.

Larry Bobbitt v. State of Indiana (NFP)
71A03-1306-CR-221
Criminal. Affirms conviction of Class B felony burglary, Class D felony possession of marijuana, and the 20-year prison sentence.

Melba Deloris Polk-King v. Lawrence Delorosa King (NFP)
49A05-1305-DR-248
Domestic relation. Affirms in part, reverses in part, and remands for recalculation of child support obligations. Judge John Baker concurs in part and dissents in part and would remand to the trial court for written findings on why it deviated from the child support guidelines.

Clayton Morgan v. State of Indiana (NFP)
48A02-1306-CR-498
Criminal. Affirms revocation of probation.

Nancy Kriel v. Richard Kriel (NFP)
49A04-1304-DR-195
Domestic relation. Affirms trial court denial of Nancy Kriel’s request for an award of incapacity maintenance.

Jeffery Deaton v. State of Indiana (NFP)
79A02-1306-CR-519
Criminal. Affirms conviction and 13-year sentence for Class B felony possession of methamphetamine enhanced by his status as a habitual substance offender.

Laurence F. Myers, Jr. v. State of Indiana (NFP)
45A03-1306-CR-232
Criminal. Affirms 36-month sentence for conviction of Class D felony operating a vehicle as a habitual traffic violator.

Indiana Supreme Court and Indiana Tax Court issued no opinions by IL deadline.  7th Circuit Court of Appeals issued no Indiana opinions Monday by 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