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
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. The practitioners and judges who hail E-filing as the Saviour of the West need to contain their respective excitements. E-filing is federal court requires the practitioner to cram his motion practice into pigeonholes created by IT people. Compound motions or those seeking alternative relief are effectively barred, unless the practitioner wants to receive a tart note from some functionary admonishing about the "problem". E-filing is just another method by which courts and judges transfer their burden to practitioners, who are the really the only powerless components of the system. Of COURSE it is easier for the court to require all of its imput to conform to certain formats, but this imposition does NOT improve the quality of the practice of law and does NOT improve the ability of the practitioner to advocate for his client or to fashion pleadings that exactly conform to his client's best interests. And we should be very wary of the disingenuous pablum about the costs. The courts will find a way to stick it to the practitioner. Lake County is a VERY good example of this rapaciousness. Any one who does not believe this is invited to review the various special fees that system imposes upon practitioners- as practitioners- and upon each case ON TOP of the court costs normal in every case manually filed. Jurisprudence according to Aldous Huxley.

  2. Any attorneys who practice in federal court should be able to say the same as I can ... efiling is great. I have been doing it in fed court since it started way back. Pacer has its drawbacks, but the ability to hit an e-docket and pull up anything and everything onscreen is a huge plus for a litigator, eps the sole practitioner, who lacks a filing clerk and the paralegal support of large firms. Were I an Indiana attorney I would welcome this great step forward.

  3. Can we get full disclosure on lobbyist's payments to legislatures such as Mr Buck? AS long as there are idiots that are disrespectful of neighbors and intent on shooting fireworks every night, some kind of regulations are needed.

  4. I am the mother of the child in this case. My silence on the matter was due to the fact that I filed, both in Illinois and Indiana, child support cases. I even filed supporting documentation with the Indiana family law court. Not sure whether this information was provided to the court of appeals or not. Wish the case was done before moving to Indiana, because no matter what, there is NO WAY the state of Illinois would have allowed an appeal on a child support case!

  5. "No one is safe when the Legislature is in session."

ADVERTISEMENT