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. 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