ILNews

Opinions June 10, 2013

June 10, 2013
Keywords
Back to TopE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

7th Circuit Court of Appeals
United States of America v. Javier Munoz
12-3351
U.S. District Court, Southern District of Indiana, Indianapolis Division, Judge Larry J. McKinney.
Criminal. Affirms 181-month sentence following a guilty plea in 2007 to distributing and possessing cocaine with intent to distribute. Munoz materially breached the conditions of his release and an implied term of the plea agreement by fleeing the country rather than showing up for sentencing. His breach allowed the government to treat the plea agreement as having been rescinded.

Indiana Court of Appeals
Maurice Frazier v. State of Indiana
49A05-1210-CR-526
Criminal. Affirms convictions of Class D felonies sexual battery, criminal confinement and official misconduct. Reverses and remands for a second Class D felony conviction of sexual battery to be reduced to Class A misdemeanor battery because the state failed to prove compulsion by force or imminent threat of force. Finds convictions do not violate double jeopardy principles.

In the Matter of the Adoption of J.T.A.; R.S.P. v. S.S.
37A03-1212-AD-525
Adoption. Affirms denial of R.S.P.’s petition to adopt J.T.A. The trial court was mistaken in believing that the father’s parental rights would have been terminated if the petition was granted, but there was nonetheless evidence to support the denial of the petition because the biological mother’s consent was required.  

Flaherty & Collins, Inc. v. BBR-Vision I, L.P., and New Castle Realty, LLC
49A05-1111-PL-569
Civil plenary. Reverses trial court’s interpretation that Section 12(a) of the management agreement between F&C and BBR requires F&C to pay attorney fees for first-party actions. The language of Section 12(a) does not create an exception to the general rule that an indemnity clause creates liability to pay only for third-party actions. The trial court erred in making findings that effectively granted summary judgment to BBR and NCR on the issue of whether they could recover damages under the Crime Victims Statute because there is a genuine issue of material fact as to whether a F&C employee’s action or BBR’s and NCR’s inaction caused any pecuniary loss to BBR and NCR. Reverses what was effectively summary judgment on the issue of whether F&C committed deception. Affirms determination that NCR has standing as a third-party beneficiary to assert its claims in this action. Remands for further proceedings.

Marrco Antonio Martinez v. State of Indiana (NFP)  
29A02-1209-CR-699
Criminal. Affirms 35-year sentence for two counts of Class A felony dealing in cocaine.

Carol Miller v. State of Indiana (NFP)  
49A05-1210-CR-523
Criminal. Affirms conviction of Class A misdemeanor pointing a firearm.

In Re The Paternity of: H.N.L.; C.L. v. B.A. (NFP)
29A05-1209-JP-483
Juvenile. Affirms order in paternity action adjudicating issues regarding custody, parenting time, child support and attorney fees.

Clifton T. Massey v. Reana Beard (NFP)  
02A05-1208-SC-399
Small claim. Affirms order awarding $4,240 to Beard in a landlord/tenant dispute.

In the Matter of the Invol. Term. of the Parent-Child Relationship of A.M.K. and A.O.K., minor children, and T.D., biological father, T.D. v. Indiana Department of Child Services (NFP)
02A03-1210-JT-452
Juvenile. Affirms order denying father’s motion to withdraw his voluntary consent to the termination of his parental rights.

James Brock Rodgers v. State of Indiana (NFP)
71A05-1302-CR-73
Criminal. Affirms conviction of Class D felony theft.

Vassil Marinov v. Bergen Car Company Inc. (NFP)  
79A02-1210-SC-897
Small claim. Dismisses appeal of judgment in favor of Bergen Car Company on Marinov’s claim for damages.

The Indiana Supreme Court and Tax Court posted no decisions at IL deadline.
 

ADVERTISEMENT

Sponsored by
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. Other than a complete lack of any verifiable and valid historical citations to back your wild context-free accusations, you also forget to allege "ate Native American children, ate slave children, ate their own children, and often did it all while using salad forks rather than dinner forks." (gasp)

  2. "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.)" Well, you know, we're just following in the footsteps of our founders who raped women, raped slaves, raped children, maimed immigrants, sold children, stole property, broke promises, broke apart families, killed natives... You know, good God fearing down home Christian folk! :/

  3. Who gives a rats behind about all the fluffy ranking nonsense. What students having to pay off debt need to know is that all schools aren't created equal and students from many schools don't have a snowball's chance of getting a decent paying job straight out of law school. Their lowly ranked lawschool won't tell them that though. When schools start honestly (accurately) reporting *those numbers, things will get interesting real quick, and the looks on student's faces will be priceless!

  4. Whilst it may be true that Judges and Justices enjoy such freedom of time and effort, it certainly does not hold true for the average working person. To say that one must 1) take a day or a half day off work every 3 months, 2) gather a list of information including recent photographs, and 3) set up a time that is convenient for the local sheriff or other such office to complete the registry is more than a bit near-sighted. This may be procedural, and hence, in the near-sighted minds of the court, not 'punishment,' but it is in fact 'punishment.' The local sheriffs probably feel a little punished too by the overwork. Registries serve to punish the offender whilst simultaneously providing the public at large with a false sense of security. The false sense of security is dangerous to the public who may not exercise due diligence by thinking there are no offenders in their locale. In fact, the registry only informs them of those who have been convicted.

  5. Unfortunately, the court doesn't understand the difference between ebidta and adjusted ebidta as they clearly got the ruling wrong based on their misunderstanding

ADVERTISEMENT