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
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. 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

  2. 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.

  3. 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.

  4. Why in the world would someone need a person to correct a transcript when a realtime court reporter could provide them with a transcript (rough draft) immediately?

  5. This article proved very enlightening. Right ahead of sitting the LSAT for the first time, I felt a sense of relief that a score of 141 was admitted to an Indiana Law School and did well under unique circumstances. While my GPA is currently 3.91 I fear standardized testing and hope that I too will get a good enough grade for acceptance here at home. Thanks so much for this informative post.

ADVERTISEMENT