ILNews

Opinions July 26, 2012

July 26, 2012
Keywords
Back to TopE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

7th Circuit Court of Appeals posted no Indiana opinions at IL deadline.

Indiana Supreme Court

Michael J. Lock v. State of Indiana
35S04-1110-CR-622
Criminal. Affirms Lock’s conviction and sentence for Class D felony operating a motor vehicle as a habitual traffic violator and the revocation of his driving privileges for life. I.C. 9-30-10-16 is not unconstitutionally vague and based on the stipulation that Lock’s Zuma was traveling 43 MPH, a reasonable fact-finder could find beyond a reasonable doubt that the Zuma had a maximum design speed in excess of 25 MPH. Justice Rucker dissents.
 
Roger L. Bushhorn v. State of Indiana
40S01-1206-CR-309
Criminal. Affirms 47-year sentence following guilty plea to Class A felony kidnapping, Class B felony criminal confinement and Class B felony attempted escape. Finds the sentence is not inappropriate under Appellate Rule 7(B) and there was no abuse of discretion.

Indiana Court of Appeals
Jeremiah Cline v. State of Indiana
06A05-1111-MI-611
Miscellaneous. Affirms determination that Cline is not required to register as a sex offender but that the trial court lacked authority to order removal of his name and information from the Indiana Sex Offender Registry. He has not demonstrated his entitlement to removal as a judicial remedy but may go through the Department of Correction. Chief Judge Robb dissents.

Denise A. Mertz a/k/a Denise A. Grimmer v. Robert G. Mertz
64A03-1108-DR-360
Domestic relation. Affirms the trial court did not err in modifying Robert Mertz’s child support obligation. His plan to pay one-half of his income toward his support obligation was a sufficient plan to warrant reinstatement of his driving privileges. Chief Judge Robb dissents in part.

J. Michael Kummerer v. C. Richard Marshall
03A01-1201-CT-33
Civil tort. Affirms failure to award Kummerer prejudgment interest and failure to grant his motion to correct errors. Prejudgment interest was not appropriate in this case because the trial court had to exercise its judgment in calculating damages.

Arnold Blevins v. Raymond Arthur Brassart (NFP)
18A03-1201-PL-8
Civil plenary. Affirms dismissal of Blevins’ claims against Brassart because they were barred by the Statute of Frauds.

Timothy Stevenson, Jr. v. State of Indiana (NFP)
48A04-1111-CR-655
Criminal. Affirms revocation of probation and order Stevenson serve his previously suspended sentence.

Fredrick D. Gaither v. State of Indiana (NFP)
49A02-1202-PC-106
Post conviction. Affirms denial of successive petition for post-conviction relief.

Derrick Rockingham v. State of Indiana (NFP)
49A02-1201-CR-25
Criminal. Affirms conviction of Class B misdemeanor public intoxication.

Douglas Chubb v. State of Indiana (NFP)
77A04-1110-CR-519
Criminal. Affirms conviction of Class B felony robbery.

J.H. and T.G. v. Indiana Department of Child Services (NFP)
02A03-1112-JT-556
Juvenile termination. Affirms termination of parental rights.

Maurice Ervin v. State of Indiana (NFP)
49A04-1112-CR-626
Criminal. Affirms conviction of Class D felony attendance with an animal at a fighting contest.

A.J. v. Indiana Department of Child Services (NFP)

82A01-1111-JT-529
Juvenile termination. Affirms termination of parental rights.
 
Indiana Tax Court posted no opinions at IL deadline.
 

ADVERTISEMENT

Sponsored by
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. Indiana's seatbelt law is not punishable as a crime. It is an infraction. Apparently some of our Circuit judges have deemed settled law inapplicable if it fails to fit their litmus test of political correctness. Extrapolating to redefine terms of behavior in a violation of immigration law to the entire body of criminal law leaves a smorgasbord of opportunity for judicial mischief.

  2. I wonder if $10 diversions for failure to wear seat belts are considered moral turpitude in federal immigration law like they are under Indiana law? Anyone know?

  3. 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

  4. 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.

  5. 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.

ADVERTISEMENT