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. It really doesn't matter what the law IS, if law enforcement refuses to take reports (or take them seriously), if courts refuse to allow unrepresented parties to speak (especially in Small Claims, which is supposedly "informal"). It doesn't matter what the law IS, if constituents are unable to make effective contact or receive any meaningful response from their representatives. Two of our pets were unnecessarily killed; court records reflect that I "abandoned" them. Not so; when I was denied one of them (and my possessions, which by court order I was supposed to be able to remove), I went directly to the court. And earlier, when I tried to have the DV PO extended (it expired while the subject was on probation for violating it), the court denied any extension. The result? Same problems, less than eight hours after expiration. Ironic that the county sheriff was charged (and later pleaded to) with intimidation, but none of his officers seemed interested or capable of taking such a report from a private citizen. When I learned from one officer what I needed to do, I forwarded audio and transcript of one occurrence and my call to law enforcement (before the statute of limitations expired) to the prosecutor's office. I didn't even receive an acknowledgement. Earlier, I'd gone in to the prosecutor's office and been told that the officer's (written) report didn't match what I said occurred. Since I had the audio, I can only say that I have very little faith in Indiana government or law enforcement.

  2. One can only wonder whether Mr. Kimmel was paid for his work by Mr. Burgh ... or whether that bill fell to the citizens of Indiana, many of whom cannot afford attorneys for important matters. It really doesn't take a judge(s) to know that "pavement" can be considered a deadly weapon. It only takes a brain and some education or thought. I'm glad to see the conviction was upheld although sorry to see that the asphalt could even be considered "an issue".

  3. In response to bryanjbrown: thank you for your comment. I am familiar with Paul Ogden (and applaud his assistance to Shirley Justice) and have read of Gary Welsh's (strange) death (and have visited his blog on many occasions). I am not familiar with you (yet). I lived in Kosciusko county, where the sheriff was just removed after pleading in what seems a very "sweetheart" deal. Unfortunately, something NEEDS to change since the attorneys won't (en masse) stand up for ethics (rather making a show to please the "rules" and apparently the judges). I read that many attorneys are underemployed. Seems wisdom would be to cull the herd and get rid of the rotting apples in practice and on the bench, for everyone's sake as well as justice. I'd like to file an attorney complaint, but I have little faith in anything (other than the most flagrant and obvious) resulting in action. My own belief is that if this was medicine, there'd be maimed and injured all over and the carnage caused by "the profession" would be difficult to hide. One can dream ... meanwhile, back to figuring out to file a pro se "motion to dismiss" as well as another court required paper that Indiana is so fond of providing NO resources for (unlike many other states, who don't automatically assume that citizens involved in the court process are scumbags) so that maybe I can get the family law attorney - whose work left me with no settlement, no possessions and resulted in the death of two pets (etc ad nauseum) - to stop abusing the proceedings supplemental and small claims rules and using it as a vehicle for harassment and apparently, amusement.

  4. Been on social security sense sept 2011 2massive strokes open heart surgery and serious ovarian cancer and a blood clot in my lung all in 14 months. Got a letter in may saying that i didn't qualify and it was in form like i just applied ,called social security she said it don't make sense and you are still geting a check in june and i did ,now i get a check from my part D asking for payment for july because there will be no money for my membership, call my prescription coverage part D and confirmed no check will be there.went to social security they didn't want to answer whats going on just said i should of never been on it .no one knows where this letter came from was California im in virginia and been here sense my strokes and vcu filed for my disability i was in the hospital when they did it .It's like it was a error . My ,mothers social security was being handled in that office in California my sister was dealing with it and it had my social security number because she died last year and this letter came out of the same office and it came at the same time i got the letter for my mother benefits for death and they had the same date of being typed just one was on the mail Saturday and one on Monday. . I think it's a mistake and it should been fixed instead there just getting rid of me .i never got a formal letter saying when i was being tsken off.

  5. Employers should not have racially discriminating mind set. It has huge impact on the society what the big players do or don't do in the industry. Background check is conducted just to verify whether information provided by the prospective employee is correct or not. It doesn't have any direct combination with the rejection of the employees. If there is rejection, there should be something effective and full-proof things on the table that may keep the company or the people associated with it in jeopardy.

ADVERTISEMENT