ILNews

Opinions July 28, 2010

July 28, 2010
Keywords
Back to TopE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

7th Circuit Court of Appeals
United States of America v. Jamarkus Gorman
09-3010
U.S. District Court, Southern District of Indiana, Indianapolis Division, Judge Sarah Evans Barker.
Criminal. Affirms conviction of perjury after testifying falsely before a grand jury. There is ample evidence to support the finding Gorman perjured himself with regard to the possession of a Bentley. The evidence was properly admitted, albeit as direct evidence rather than inextricable intertwinement evidence, and its probative value was not substantially outweighed by any risk of unfair prejudice.  

Indiana Supreme Court had posted no opinions at IL deadline.

Indiana Court of Appeals
Adoption of H.L.W. Jr.; H.L.W. Sr. and IDCS v. L.M.D. and D.P.D.
71A03-0911-CV-516
Civil. Reverses grant of an adoption petition filed by L.M.D. and D.P.D. regarding H.L.W. Jr. The consent statutes of Indiana Code Chapter 31-19-9 enabled the trial court to consider the adoption proceeding despite the pending CHINS action. DCS met its burden of demonstrating by clear and convincing evidence that its withholding of consent to the adoption was in the child’s best interests.

Nelson Rios v. State of Indiana
49A02-0912-CR-1273
Criminal. Reverses order that Rios serve consecutive sentences for convictions of two counts of dealing in a lookalike substance as Class C felonies. The imposition of consecutive sentences based on incidents that were virtually identical and very close in time contravenes rulings in Beno and Gregory. Remands for a new sentencing determination.

Putnam County Sheriff v. Pamela Rice
60A01-0911-CV-551
Civil. Affirms order denying the sheriff’s motion to dismiss filed in the civil action brought by Price for damages resulting from a car accident. The sheriff, through its agent Deputy Wallace, owed a common law duty of ordinary and reasonable care to warn the traveling public of the known hazardous condition on the icy road.

Paul Komyatti, Jr. v. State of Indiana
52A04-1002-MI-74
Miscellaneous. Affirms denial of petition for post-conviction relief that challenged the revocation of Komyatti’s parole. There are no genuine questions of fact with respect to Komyatti’s PCR petition and the state was entitled to judgment as a matter of law.

James Townsend v. State of Indiana (NFP)
49A04-0912-CR-703
Criminal. Affirms conviction of and sentence for murder.

Gerardo Bensez v. State of Indiana (NFP)
03A01-0912-CR-611
Criminal. Dismisses appeal of conviction following guilty plea to Class B felony dealing in cocaine.

Marlinda Nunley v. State of Indiana (NFP)
48A02-0912-CR-1177
Criminal. Affirms finding Nunley violated the terms of her probation and that she serve two years of her previously suspended sentence in the Department of Correction.

Thomas Eugene Ferrell v. State of Indiana (NFP)
46A03-0910-CR-471
Criminal. Affirms conviction of and sentence for Class B felony dealing in cocaine.

In The Guardianship of John Joseph Bortka, II (NFP)
88A01-0907-CV-343
Civil. Affirms order that John Jerald Bortka, former guardian of John Joseph Bortka and his estate, reimburse the guardianship estate in the amount of $12,034 and award of attorney fees to Paula Bortka Wells. Remands with instructions to calculate the amount of appellate costs Paula is entitled to from John Jerald Bortka.

Jeremy Culp v. State of Indiana (NFP)
49A02-1001-CR-11
Criminal. Affirms conviction of Class D felony theft.

Bruce Hatfield, et al. v. Area Plan Commission of Evansville (NFP)
82A01-0910-CV-502
Civil. Reverses trial court’s decision limiting Hatfield and others’ damages for an alleged taking.

Term. of Parent-Child Rel. of T.H.C.; T.C. & C.P. v. I.D.C.S. (NFP)
71A04-1001-JT-104
Juvenile. Affirms termination of parental rights.

Indiana Tax Court had posted no opinions at 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