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. Applause, applause, applause ..... but, is this duty to serve the constitutional order not much more incumbent upon the State, whose only aim is to be pure and unadulterated justice, than defense counsel, who is also charged with gaining a result for a client? I agree both are responsible, but it seems to me that the government attorneys bear a burden much heavier than defense counsel .... "“I note, much as we did in Mechling v. State, 16 N.E.3d 1015 (Ind. Ct. App. 2014), trans. denied, that the attorneys representing the State and the defendant are both officers of the court and have a responsibility to correct any obvious errors at the time they are committed."

  2. Do I have to hire an attorney to get co-guardianship of my brother? My father has guardianship and my older sister was his co-guardian until this Dec 2014 when she passed and my father was me to go on as the co-guardian, but funds are limit and we need to get this process taken care of quickly as our fathers health isn't the greatest. So please advise me if there is anyway to do this our self or if it requires a lawyer? Thank you

  3. I have been on this program while on parole from 2011-2013. No person should be forced mentally to share private details of their personal life with total strangers. Also giving permission for a mental therapist to report to your parole agent that your not participating in group therapy because you don't have the financial mean to be in the group therapy. I was personally singled out and sent back three times for not having money and also sent back within the six month when you aren't to be sent according to state law. I will work to het this INSOMM's removed from this state. I also had twelve or thirteen parole agents with a fifteen month period. Thanks for your time.

  4. Our nation produces very few jurists of the caliber of Justice DOUGLAS and his peers these days. Here is that great civil libertarian, who recognized government as both a blessing and, when corrupted by ideological interests, a curse: "Once the investigator has only the conscience of government as a guide, the conscience can become ‘ravenous,’ as Cromwell, bent on destroying Thomas More, said in Bolt, A Man For All Seasons (1960), p. 120. The First Amendment mirrors many episodes where men, harried and harassed by government, sought refuge in their conscience, as these lines of Thomas More show: ‘MORE: And when we stand before God, and you are sent to Paradise for doing according to your conscience, *575 and I am damned for not doing according to mine, will you come with me, for fellowship? ‘CRANMER: So those of us whose names are there are damned, Sir Thomas? ‘MORE: I don't know, Your Grace. I have no window to look into another man's conscience. I condemn no one. ‘CRANMER: Then the matter is capable of question? ‘MORE: Certainly. ‘CRANMER: But that you owe obedience to your King is not capable of question. So weigh a doubt against a certainty—and sign. ‘MORE: Some men think the Earth is round, others think it flat; it is a matter capable of question. But if it is flat, will the King's command make it round? And if it is round, will the King's command flatten it? No, I will not sign.’ Id., pp. 132—133. DOUGLAS THEN WROTE: Where government is the Big Brother,11 privacy gives way to surveillance. **909 But our commitment is otherwise. *576 By the First Amendment we have staked our security on freedom to promote a multiplicity of ideas, to associate at will with kindred spirits, and to defy governmental intrusion into these precincts" Gibson v. Florida Legislative Investigation Comm., 372 U.S. 539, 574-76, 83 S. Ct. 889, 908-09, 9 L. Ed. 2d 929 (1963) Mr. Justice DOUGLAS, concurring. I write: Happy Memorial Day to all -- God please bless our fallen who lived and died to preserve constitutional governance in our wonderful series of Republics. And God open the eyes of those government officials who denounce the constitutions of these Republics by arbitrary actions arising out capricious motives.

  5. From back in the day before secularism got a stranglehold on Hoosier jurists comes this great excerpt via Indiana federal court judge Allan Sharp, dedicated to those many Indiana government attorneys (with whom I have dealt) who count the law as a mere tool, an optional tool that is not to be used when political correctness compels a more acceptable result than merely following the path that the law directs: ALLEN SHARP, District Judge. I. In a scene following a visit by Henry VIII to the home of Sir Thomas More, playwriter Robert Bolt puts the following words into the mouths of his characters: Margaret: Father, that man's bad. MORE: There is no law against that. ROPER: There is! God's law! MORE: Then God can arrest him. ROPER: Sophistication upon sophistication! MORE: No, sheer simplicity. The law, Roper, the law. I know what's legal not what's right. And I'll stick to what's legal. ROPER: Then you set man's law above God's! MORE: No, far below; but let me draw your attention to a fact I'm not God. The currents and eddies of right and wrong, which you find such plain sailing, I can't navigate. I'm no voyager. But in the thickets of law, oh, there I'm a forester. I doubt if there's a man alive who could follow me there, thank God... ALICE: (Exasperated, pointing after Rich) While you talk, he's gone! MORE: And go he should, if he was the Devil himself, until he broke the law! ROPER: So now you'd give the Devil benefit of law! MORE: Yes. What would you do? Cut a great road through the law to get after the Devil? ROPER: I'd cut down every law in England to do that! MORE: (Roused and excited) Oh? (Advances on Roper) And when the last law was down, and the Devil turned round on you where would you hide, Roper, the laws being flat? (He leaves *1257 him) This country's planted thick with laws from coast to coast man's laws, not God's and if you cut them down and you're just the man to do it d'you really think you would stand upright in the winds that would blow then? (Quietly) Yes, I'd give the Devil benefit of law, for my own safety's sake. ROPER: I have long suspected this; this is the golden calf; the law's your god. MORE: (Wearily) Oh, Roper, you're a fool, God's my god... (Rather bitterly) But I find him rather too (Very bitterly) subtle... I don't know where he is nor what he wants. ROPER: My God wants service, to the end and unremitting; nothing else! MORE: (Dryly) Are you sure that's God! He sounds like Moloch. But indeed it may be God And whoever hunts for me, Roper, God or Devil, will find me hiding in the thickets of the law! And I'll hide my daughter with me! Not hoist her up the mainmast of your seagoing principles! They put about too nimbly! (Exit More. They all look after him). Pgs. 65-67, A MAN FOR ALL SEASONS A Play in Two Acts, Robert Bolt, Random House, New York, 1960. Linley E. Pearson, Atty. Gen. of Indiana, Indianapolis, for defendants. Childs v. Duckworth, 509 F. Supp. 1254, 1256 (N.D. Ind. 1981) aff'd, 705 F.2d 915 (7th Cir. 1983)

ADVERTISEMENT