ILNews

Opinions July 3, 2012

July 3, 2012
Keywords
Back to TopE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

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

Indiana Supreme Court and Tax Court posted no opinions prior to IL deadline.

Indiana Court of Appeals

In Re: The Matter of the Paternity of S.C.: K.C. (Appellant), and C.C. (Appellee), and B.H. (Appellee-Intervenor)
30A01-1107-JP-322
Juvenile paternity. Reaffirms original opinion affirming Hancock Circuit Court’s ruling vacating a finding of paternity for C.C. because another paternity action on behalf of B.H. was pending in Fayette Circuit. The decision grants rehearing in Hancock Circuit, finding that mother, S.C., did not inform the Hancock court of B.H’s pending paternity proceeding.

Julie Winslow v. Larry D. Fifer
84A04-1109-DR-518
Domestic relations/educational support. Affirms trial court ruling finding the plaintiff/mother in contempt of court, ordering her to pay defendant/father’s attorney fees and computing her proportional share of a daughter’s educational expenses. The court found the trial court did not abuse its discretion in sanctions for the plaintiff’s violation of court orders regarding educational support.

James Mies and Janice Mies v. Steuben County Board of Zoning Appeals
76A03-1112-PL-564
Civil plenary/zoning. Affirms the trial court order reversing the Steuben County Board of Zoning Appeals’ variance and remands the case to the BZA for a new hearing, holding that the board could not issue a post-construction variance for a lakeside deck that included waterfront setback requirements that would make the variance a legal nullity.

Ronald B. Hawkins v. State of Indiana
20A03-1112-CR-579
Criminal. Affirms in part, reverses in part and remands in a split decision trial court convictions and sentences for two counts of Class C felony non-support of a dependent child. The appeals court held that the trial court erred in entering both convictions as Class C felonies and instructed the court to reduce one conviction to a Class D felony and enter the advisory sentence.

Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., f/k/a Wachovia Commercial Mortgage, Inc. v. PNC Bank, N.A., f/k/a National City Bank of Indiana
49A02-1111-PL-1004
Civil plenary. Affirms the trial court’s grant of summary judgment in favor of defendants on plaintiff’s suit alleging breach of contract, promissory estoppel, unjust enrichment, breach of duty to deal in good faith, tortious injury to property interest, slander of title and bad faith. The court held that the trial court did not err when it ruled the claims were barred by res judicata.

Leonard Dewitt v. Unsafe Building Department, City of Greendale, Indiana, Doug Hedrick, et al. (NFP)
15A04-1110-MI-567
Miscellaneous/inverse condemnation. Affirms trial court dismissal of action for inverse condemnation due to untimely filing of appeal of the Unsafe Building Department’s decision.

Stephen R. Harvey, Jr. v. State of Indiana (NFP)
02A04-1201-CR-43
Criminal. Affirms trial court’s application of sentencing as a habitual offender.

Antonio Martell Twiggs v. State of Indiana (NFP)
45A03-1111-CR-538
Criminal. Affirms trial court’s sentence of 10 years with eight years executed for a Class B felony conviction of burglary.

Jack D. Tiller v. Review Board of the Indiana Dept. of Workforce Development, IDWD U.I. Claims Adjudication, and the Town of Walkerton (NFP)
93A02-1110-EX-961
Executive administration/unemployment. Affirms Review Board of the Indiana Department of Workforce Development ruling that plaintiff failed to disclose or falsified facts in applying for unemployment insurance.

Paul Roell v. American Senior Communities, LLP d/b/a East Lake Nursing & Rehabilitation Center, and Harry Scribner (NFP)
20A03-1111-CT-524
Civil Tort. Affirms in a split decision the trial court’s dismissal of plaintiff’s assault claim and denial of defendant’s motion for summary judgment.

Kevin Cortez Brown v. State of Indiana (NFP)
45A03-1107-CR-320
Criminal. Affirms interlocutory appeal of trial court’s denial of motion to suppress his confession in a fatal shooting.

Darryl Shepherd v. State of Indiana (NFP)
49A05-1111-CR-600
Criminal. Affirms trial court conviction of Class B felony possession of a firearm by a serious violent felon.

Richard B. Gonon v. Wright & Lerch, David M. Wright, Stephen J. Lerch, William C. Butler, and Stephen J. Shumlas (NFP)
49A04-1111-CC-576
Civil collection. Affirms trial court’s order granting motion for transfer of venue and denies defendants’ request for appellate attorney fees.

Aaron Isby v. Lee Hoefling, David Gilstrap, James Basinger, Roger Randall Jr., Kevin Ewers, Edwin Buss, and David Sloan (NFP)
49A05-1110-MI-592
Miscellaneous. Affirms trial court ruling dismissing plaintiff’s suit on basis it failed to state a claim on which relief could be granted.

J.R. v. State of Indiana (NFP)
71A03-1203-JV-105
Juvenile. Affirms trial court ruling that placed J.R., a 17-year-old pregnant girl who was on probation, in a residential program to learn parenting skills and provide a safe environment for the child.

Kyle E. Bowers v. State of Indiana (NFP)
73A01-1110-CR-464
Criminal. Affirms trial court convictions of three counts of dealing in a schedule I or II narcotic as Class B felonies, and three counts of reckless homicide as Class C felonies, pursuant to a guilty plea.

Antwuan Brown v. State of Indiana (NFP)
49A02-1108-CR-726
Criminal. Affirms trial court convictions of Class A misdemeanor resisting law enforcement and Class B misdemeanor disorderly conduct.

Scott D. Wampler, Jr. v. State of Indiana (NFP)
09A02-1201-CR-61
Criminal. Affirms trial court convictions and sentence for Class B felony burglary and criminal confinement.
 
Holly Fuhrman v. State of Indiana (NFP)
65A01-1108-CR-357
Criminal. Affirms trial court sentence for Class C felony forgery.

Jonathan S. Gardiner v. Review Board of the Indiana Dept. of Workforce Development, and Audio Video International Limited (NFP)
93A02-1110-EX-1052
Executive administration/unemployment. Affirms defendant’s denial of unemployment compensation benefits.
 
In the Matter of the Involuntary Commitment of A.B. (NFP)
10A01-1109-MH-483
Mental health/involuntary commitment. Affirms trial court’s continuation of involuntary commitment after a review hearing.
 
In the Matter of the Involuntary Term. of the Parent-Child Rel. of S.W.; H.L. v. The Indiana Dept. of Child Services (NFP)
15A01-1112-JT-623
Juvenile termination of parental rights. Affirms trial court’s termination of plaintiff mother’s termination of parental rights.
 
Dontay Foster v. State of Indiana (NFP)
49A02-1111-CR-1036
Criminal. Affirms trial court convictions of Class D felony criminal confinement, criminal confinement by removal and residential entry; and Class A misdemeanor battery.
 
Ronnie Smith v. State of Indiana (NFP)
15A04-1108-PC-445
Criminal/post-conviction relief. Affirms trial court denial of post-conviction relief
 

ADVERTISEMENT

Sponsored by
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. Falk said “At this point, at this minute, we’ll savor this particular victory.” “It certainly is a historic week on this front,” Cockrum said. “What a delight ... “Happy Independence Day to the women of the state of Indiana,” WOW. So we broke with England for the right to "off" our preborn progeny at will, and allow the processing plant doing the dirty deeds (dirt cheap) to profit on the marketing of those "products of conception." I was completely maleducated on our nation's founding, it would seem. (But I know the ACLU is hard at work to remedy that, too.)

  2. congratulations on such balanced journalism; I also love how fetus disposal affects women's health protection, as covered by Roe...

  3. It truly sickens me every time a case is compared to mine. The Indiana Supreme Court upheld my convictions based on a finding of “hidden threats.” The term “hidden threat” never appeared until the opinion in Brewington so I had no way of knowing I was on trial for making hidden threats because Dearborn County Prosecutor F Aaron Negangard argued the First Amendment didn't protect lies. Negangard convened a grand jury to investigate me for making “over the top” and “unsubstantiated” statements about court officials, not hidden threats of violence. My indictments and convictions were so vague, the Indiana Court of Appeals made no mention of hidden threats when they upheld my convictions. Despite my public defender’s closing arguments stating he was unsure of exactly what conduct the prosecution deemed to be unlawful, Rush found that my lawyer’s trial strategy waived my right to the fundamental error of being tried for criminal defamation because my lawyer employed a strategy that attempted to take advantage of Negangard's unconstitutional criminal defamation prosecution against me. Rush’s opinion stated the prosecution argued two grounds for conviction one constitutional and one not, however the constitutional true threat “argument” consistently of only a blanket reading of subsection 1 of the intimidation statute during closing arguments, making it impossible to build any kind of defense. Of course intent was impossible for my attorney to argue because my attorney, Rush County Chief Public Defender Bryan Barrett refused to meet with me prior to trial. The record is littered with examples of where I made my concerns known to the trial judge that I didn’t know the charges against me, I did not have access to evidence, all while my public defender refused to meet with me. Special Judge Brian Hill, from Rush Superior Court, refused to address the issue with my public defender and marched me to trial without access to evidence or an understanding of the indictments against me. Just recently the Indiana Public Access Counselor found that four over four years Judge Hill has erroneously denied access to the grand jury audio from my case, the most likely reason being the transcription of the grand jury proceedings omitted portions of the official audio record. The bottom line is any intimidation case involves an action or statement that is debatably a threat of physical violence. There were no such statements in my case. The Indiana Supreme Court took partial statements I made over a period of 41 months and literally connected them with dots… to give the appearance that the statements were made within the same timeframe and then claimed a person similarly situated would find the statements intimidating while intentionally leaving out surrounding contextual factors. Even holding the similarly situated test was to be used in my case, the prosecution argued that the only intent of my public writings was to subject the “victims” to ridicule and hatred so a similarly situated jury instruction wouldn't even have applied in my case. Chief Justice Rush wrote the opinion while Rush continued to sit on a committee with one of the alleged victims in my trial and one of the judges in my divorce, just as she'd done for the previous 7+ years. All of this information, including the recent PAC opinion against the Dearborn Superior Court II can be found on my blog www.danbrewington.blogspot.com.

  4. On a related note, I offered the ICLU my cases against the BLE repeatedly, and sought their amici aid repeatedly as well. Crickets. Usually not even a response. I am guessing they do not do allegations of anti-Christian bias? No matter how glaring? I have posted on other links the amicus brief that did get filed (search this ezine, e.g., Kansas attorney), read the Thomas More Society brief to note what the ACLU ran from like vampires from garlic. An Examiner pledged to advance diversity and inclusion came right out on the record and demanded that I choose Man's law or God's law. I wonder, had I been asked to swear off Allah ... what result then, ICLU? Had I been found of bad character and fitness for advocating sexual deviance, what result then ICLU? Had I been lifetime banned for posting left of center statements denigrating the US Constitution, what result ICLU? Hey, we all know don't we? Rather Biased.

  5. It was mentioned in the article that there have been numerous CLE events to train attorneys on e-filing. I would like someone to provide a list of those events, because I have not seen any such events in east central Indiana, and since Hamilton County is one of the counties where e-filing is mandatory, one would expect some instruction in this area. Come on, people, give some instruction, not just applause!

ADVERTISEMENT