ILNews

Opinions Jan. 29, 2014

January 29, 2014
Keywords
Back to TopE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

Indiana Court of Appeals
Cory L. Meadows v. State of Indiana
39A01-1305-CR-215
Criminal. Affirms the denial of Meadows’ request for credit for the time he served on electronic monitoring while he was in the drug court program. After examining the statutory provisions governing sentencing, electronic monitoring and deferral programs, concludes it was within the court’s discretion to deny the credit toward his sentence.

Ralph Andrews v. MOR/Ryde International, Inc.
20A04-1303-PL-141
Civil plenary. Affirms order finding that should Andrews’ complaint against Mor/Ryde for breach of contract be successful at a future trial, the damages awarded under Indiana Code 24-4-7-5(b), the Indiana Sales Representative Act, are punitive in nature and, therefore, would be subject to the evidentiary standard, limitation, and diversion provisions of Indiana’s punitive damages statute under Indiana Code 34-51-3-1, et seq. Judge Barnes dissents.

Emergency Services Billing Corporation, Individually and as Agent of the Brooklyn Volunteer Fire Department v. Tonia Conklin and American Family Insurance Group (NFP)
49A05-1309-PL-428
Civil plenary. Reverses summary judgment in favor of Conklin and American Family granted by the court prior to the due date of Emergency Services Billing Corp.’s response brief under Indiana Trial Rules. Remands for further proceedings.

Talesa Howell v. State of Indiana (NFP)
57A05-1306-CR-314
Criminal. Affirms sentence following probation revocation.

Ronald Lemon v. State of Indiana (NFP)
82A05-1305-CR-221
Criminal. Affirms conviction of Class D felony auto theft.

Joseph Franklin v. State of Indiana (NFP)
49A04-1307-CR-323
Criminal.  Reverses Franklin’s conviction of Class D felony possession of a controlled substance.

Maurice D. Beckham v. State of Indiana (NFP)
45A04-1305-CR-234
Criminal. Affirms sentence following guilty plea to murder.

Mark F. Johnson v. State of Indiana (NFP)
02A03-1305-CR-182
Criminal. Affirms sentence for Class A felony burglary.

Jesus Maldonado v. State of Indiana (NFP)
45A04-1307-CR-333
Criminal. Affirms sentence for Class B felony stalking.

In Re the Paternity of A.C.P-C., J.P. v. J.H.C. (NFP)
79A02-1305-JP-423
Juvenile. Affirms grant of father’s petition to prevent mother from relocating with the child.

Thomas Walker v. State of Indiana (NFP)
89A01-1305-CR-248
Criminal. Affirms Class D felony conviction of receiving stolen property.

Andre Marshall, Jr. v. State of Indiana (NFP)
45A03-1305-CR-191
Criminal. Affirms convictions and sentences for Class B felony criminal confinement, Class B felony robbery, Class C felony intimidation, Class D felony pointing a firearm and Class A misdemeanor battery.

Robert L. Neale v. Correctional Medical Services, Inc., et al (NFP)
52A05-1307-CT-361
Civil tort. Affirms summary judgment for the defendants on Neale’s suit alleging medical malpractice and general negligence in the treatment of his injuries sustained from punching his cellmate in the face.

Lynda A. Harris-Martinez v. State of Indiana (NFP)
02A03-1304-CR-123
Criminal. Affirms sentence for Class B felony failure to stop after an accident resulting in injury or death following her guilty plea to four counts of Class A misdemeanor failure to stop after an accident resulting in injury or death, one count of Class B felony failure to stop after an accident resulting in injury or death, and one count of Class D felony operating a vehicle while intoxicated causing serious bodily injury.

Michael Eaton v. State of Indiana (NFP)
29A02-1308-CR-699
Criminal. Affirms conviction of Class C felony battery resulting in serious bodily injury.

Ivan C. Patterson v. CitiMortgage, Inc. (NFP)
45A03-1212-MF-548
Mortgage foreclosure. Affirms denial of motion for relief from judgment under Ind. Trial Rule 60(B).

In the Matter of the Termination of the Parent-Child Relationship of: M.P. and E.P. (Minor Children), and F.P. (Mother) v. The Indiana Department of Child Services (NFP)
23A01-1307-JT-308
Juvenile. Affirms termination of parental rights.

Kathleen Walton, Personal Representative of Estate of Mary Cox, Deceased v. Estate of Glenn Swisher, Deceased (NFP)
49A02-1307-EU-626
Estate, unsupervised. Affirms grant of summary judgment in favor of the estate of Glenn Swisher.

Ryan Bailey v. State of Indiana (NFP)
49A02-1305-CR-419
Criminal. Affirms conviction of Class A misdemeanor resisting law enforcement.

Dawn M. Bailey v. State of Indiana (NFP)
84A01-1308-CR-346
Criminal. Affirms revocation of probation and reinstatement of the remainder of Bailey’s suspended sentences.

Fredrick Kyles v. State of Indiana (NFP)
49A02-1305-CR-446
Criminal. Affirms convictions of one count each of Class B felonies robbery and criminal recklessness.

Aaron Gordy v. State of Indiana (NFP)
29A02-1306-CR-504
Criminal. Affirms revocation of placement in community corrections.

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

ADVERTISEMENT

Sponsored by
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. No second amendment, pro life, pro traditional marriage, reagan or trump tshirts will be sold either. And you cannot draw Mohammed even in your own notebook. And you must wear a helmet at all times while at the fair. And no lawyer jokes can be told except in the designated protest area. And next year no crucifixes, since they are uber offensive to all but Catholics. Have a nice bland day here in the Lego movie. Remember ... Everything is awesome comrades.

  2. Thank you for this post . I just bought a LG External DVD It came with Cyber pwr 2 go . It would not play on Lenovo Idea pad w/8.1 . Your recommended free VLC worked great .

  3. All these sites putting up all the crap they do making Brent Look like A Monster like he's not a good person . First off th fight actually started not because of Brent but because of one of his friends then when the fight popped off his friend ran like a coward which left Brent to fend for himself .It IS NOT a crime to defend yourself 3 of them and 1 of him . just so happened he was a better fighter. I'm Brent s wife so I know him personally and up close . He's a very caring kind loving man . He's not abusive in any way . He is a loving father and really shouldn't be where he is not for self defense . Now because of one of his stupid friends trying to show off and turning out to be nothing but a coward and leaving Brent to be jumped by 3 men not only is Brent suffering but Me his wife , his kids abd step kidshis mom and brother his family is left to live without him abd suffering in more ways then one . that man was and still is my smile ....he's the one real thing I've ever had in my life .....f@#@ You Lafayette court system . Learn to do your jobs right he maybe should have gotten that year for misdemeanor battery but that s it . not one person can stand to me and tell me if u we're in a fight facing 3 men and u just by yourself u wouldn't fight back that you wouldn't do everything u could to walk away to ur family ur kids That's what Brent is guilty of trying to defend himself against 3 men he wanted to go home tohisfamily worse then they did he just happened to be a better fighter and he got the best of th others . what would you do ? Stand there lay there and be stomped and beaten or would u give it everything u got and fight back ? I'd of done the same only I'm so smallid of probably shot or stabbed or picked up something to use as a weapon . if it was me or them I'd do everything I could to make sure I was going to live that I would make it hone to see my kids and husband . I Love You Brent Anthony Forever & Always .....Soul 1 baby

  4. Good points, although this man did have a dog in the legal fight as that it was his mother on trial ... and he a dependent. As for parking spaces, handicap spots for pregnant women sure makes sense to me ... er, I mean pregnant men or women. (Please, I meant to include pregnant men the first time, not Room 101 again, please not Room 101 again. I love BB)

  5. I have no doubt that the ADA and related laws provide that many disabilities must be addressed. The question, however, is "by whom?" Many people get dealt bad cards by life. Some are deaf. Some are blind. Some are crippled. Why is it the business of the state to "collectivize" these problems and to force those who are NOT so afflicted to pay for those who are? The fact that this litigant was a mere spectator and not a party is chilling. What happens when somebody who speaks only East Bazurkistanish wants a translator so that he can "understand" the proceedings in a case in which he has NO interest? Do I and all other taxpayers have to cough up? It would seem so. ADA should be amended to provide a simple rule: "Your handicap, YOUR problem". This would apply particularly to handicapped parking spaces, where it seems that if the "handicap" is an ingrown toenail, the government comes rushing in to assist the poor downtrodden victim. I would grant wounded vets (IED victims come to mind in particular) a pass on this.. but others? Nope.

ADVERTISEMENT