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 His breach allowed the government to treat the plea agreement as having been rescinded.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. What a fine article, thank you! I can testify firsthand and by detailed legal reports (at end of this note) as to the dire consequences of rejecting this truth from the fine article above: "The inclusion and expansion of this right [to jury] in Indiana’s Constitution is a clear reflection of our state’s intention to emphasize the importance of every Hoosier’s right to make their case in front of a jury of their peers." Over $20? Every Hoosier? Well then how about when your very vocation is on the line? How about instead of a jury of peers, one faces a bevy of political appointees, mini-czars, who care less about due process of the law than the real czars did? Instead of trial by jury, trial by ideological ordeal run by Orwellian agents? Well that is built into more than a few administrative law committees of the Ind S.Ct., and it is now being weaponized, as is revealed in articles posted at this ezine, to root out post moderns heresies like refusal to stand and pledge allegiance to all things politically correct. My career was burned at the stake for not so saluting, but I think I was just one of the early logs. Due, at least in part, to the removal of the jury from bar admission and bar discipline cases, many more fires will soon be lit. Perhaps one awaits you, dear heretic? Oh, at that Ind. article 12 plank about a remedy at law for every damage done ... ah, well, the founders evidently meant only for those damages done not by the government itself, rabid statists that they were. (Yes, that was sarcasm.) My written reports available here: Denied petition for cert (this time around): http://tinyurl.com/zdmawmw Denied petition for cert (from the 2009 denial and five year banishment): http://tinyurl.com/zcypybh Related, not written by me: Amicus brief: http://tinyurl.com/hvh7qgp

  2. Justice has finally been served. So glad that Dr. Ley can finally sleep peacefully at night knowing the truth has finally come to the surface.

  3. While this right is guaranteed by our Constitution, it has in recent years been hampered by insurance companies, i.e.; the practice of the plaintiff's own insurance company intervening in an action and filing a lien against any proceeds paid to their insured. In essence, causing an additional financial hurdle for a plaintiff to overcome at trial in terms of overall award. In a very real sense an injured party in exercise of their right to trial by jury may be the only party in a cause that would end up with zero compensation.

  4. Why in the world would someone need a person to correct a transcript when a realtime court reporter could provide them with a transcript (rough draft) immediately?

  5. This article proved very enlightening. Right ahead of sitting the LSAT for the first time, I felt a sense of relief that a score of 141 was admitted to an Indiana Law School and did well under unique circumstances. While my GPA is currently 3.91 I fear standardized testing and hope that I too will get a good enough grade for acceptance here at home. Thanks so much for this informative post.

ADVERTISEMENT