ILNews

Opinions Jan. 29, 2013

January 29, 2013
Keywords
Back to TopE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

Indiana Court of Appeals
John Alden v. State of Indiana
30A01-1209-CR-412
Criminal. Affirmed trial court’s denial of petition to reduce Alden’s Class D felony conviction for operating while intoxicated to a Class A misdemeanor. In a review of the state statute covering the sentencing range for Class D felonies, the COA found the statute contained the word “may” instead of “shall” which gives the courts the freedom to deny petitions.

Michael L. Curtis v. State of Indiana

49A02-1203-MI-271
Miscellaneous. Reversed and remanded with instructions the trial court’s denial of Curtis’ Indiana Trial Rule 60(B) motion for relief from judgment following the forfeiture of his truck. The COA ruled that the pirated movies Curtis was selling from his truck do not constitute stolen or converted property and therefore he is not subject to I.C. 34-24-1-1(a)(1)(B), which allows forfeiture only in cases of theft or conversion but says nothing about copyright infringement.  

Seth Anderson v. Huntington County Board of Commissioners
35A04-1207-MI-357
Miscellaneous/public records. In a case of first impression, affirmed a public access counselor ruling that a request for emails that sought those to and from four public officials over a specified time period did not meet the requirement of the Access to Public Records Act that the requests be made with “reasonable particularity.” Even though records ultimately were provided as initially requested after a suit was filed, judges held that the PAC ruling and the county’s initial denial of the records for lack of reasonable particularity were not ARPA violations.

Kelly Coots v. State of Indiana (NFP)
15A05-1203-CR-155
Criminal. Affirms sentence of a maximum of three years in prison on a conviction of Class D felony theft.

Jeffrey A. Booth v. State of Indiana (NFP)
84A01-1203-CR-118
Criminal. Affirms conviction of Class B felony dealing in methamphetamine and Class D felony possession of methamphetamime.

Rudy J. Smith v. State of Indiana (NFP)
53A04-1202-PC-280
Post conviction. Affirms denial of post-conviction relief.

Clarence Johnson v. Juana Johnson (NFP)
45A03-1202-DR-94
Domestic relations/dissolution. Affirms judgment of trial court in all respects.

Madelyn Smith v. State of Indiana (NFP)

49A02-1205-CR-408
Criminal. Affirms 10-year executed sentence for convictions of Class B felony neglect of a dependent, two counts of Class B felony battery, and three counts of Class D felony battery.

In Re: The Paternity of K.G.; J.G. and S.S. and A.S. (NFP)
49A05-1206-JP-307
Juvenile. Affirms trial court order awarding mother S.S. custody of daughter K.G.

Accessabilities, Inc. v. Review Board of the Indiana Dept. of Workforce Development (NFP)
93A02-1207-EX-551
Executive administration/worker’s compensation. Affirms Department of Workforce Development Review Board decision that an employee was not discharged for just cause.

Denise Polak and Dianne Rose and Dianne Rose, Lake County Trust Co., as Trustee for Trust #6041, and Jeanne Collins Living Trust, Dianne Rose, Trustee v. Tiffiny Jordan (NFP)
64A05-1205-PL-284
Civil plenary. Reverses trial court ruling joining Polak as a party to a suit filed by Jordan.

Ray Ortega v. Susko Corp., Inc., d/b/a Our Place (NFP)

45A03-1205-CT-219
Civil tort. Affirms trial court grant of judgment on the evidence in favor of Susko.

Lanard E. Foster v. State of Indiana (NFP)
02A04-1207-CR-390
Criminal. Affirms concurrent three-year sentences for convictions of Class D felony domestic battery in the presence of a child under age 16 and Class D felony domestic battery with a prior domestic battery conviction.

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