Opinions June 10, 2013

June 10, 2013
Back to TopE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

7th Circuit Court of Appeals
United States of America v. Javier Munoz
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 His breach allowed the government to treat the plea agreement as having been rescinded.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
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.
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
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)  
Criminal. Affirms 35-year sentence for two counts of Class A felony dealing in cocaine.

Carol Miller v. State of Indiana (NFP)  
Criminal. Affirms conviction of Class A misdemeanor pointing a firearm.

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

Clifton T. Massey v. Reana Beard (NFP)  
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)
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)
Criminal. Affirms conviction of Class D felony theft.

Vassil Marinov v. Bergen Car Company Inc. (NFP)  
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.


Sponsored by
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. I think the cops are doing a great job locking up criminals. The Murder rates in the inner cities are skyrocketing and you think that too any people are being incarcerated. Maybe we need to lock up more of them. We have the ACLU, BLM, NAACP, Civil right Division of the DOJ, the innocent Project etc. We have court system with an appeal process that can go on for years, with attorneys supplied by the government. I'm confused as to how that translates into the idea that the defendants are not being represented properly. Maybe the attorneys need to do more Pro-Bono work

  2. We do not have 10% of our population (which would mean about 32 million) incarcerated. It's closer to 2%.

  3. If a class action suit or other manner of retribution is possible, count me in. I have email and voicemail from the man. He colluded with opposing counsel, I am certain. My case was damaged so severely it nearly lost me everything and I am still paying dearly.

  4. There's probably a lot of blame that can be cast around for Indiana Tech's abysmal bar passage rate this last February. The folks who decided that Indiana, a state with roughly 16,000 to 18,000 attorneys, needs a fifth law school need to question the motives that drove their support of this project. Others, who have been "strong supporters" of the law school, should likewise ask themselves why they believe this institution should be supported. Is it because it fills some real need in the state? Or is it, instead, nothing more than a resume builder for those who teach there part-time? And others who make excuses for the students' poor performance, especially those who offer nothing more than conspiracy theories to back up their claims--who are they helping? What evidence do they have to support their posturing? Ultimately, though, like most everything in life, whether one succeeds or fails is entirely within one's own hands. At least one student from Indiana Tech proved this when he/she took and passed the February bar. A second Indiana Tech student proved this when they took the bar in another state and passed. As for the remaining 9 who took the bar and didn't pass (apparently, one of the students successfully appealed his/her original score), it's now up to them (and nobody else) to ensure that they pass on their second attempt. These folks should feel no shame; many currently successful practicing attorneys failed the bar exam on their first try. These same attorneys picked themselves up, dusted themselves off, and got back to the rigorous study needed to ensure they would pass on their second go 'round. This is what the Indiana Tech students who didn't pass the first time need to do. Of course, none of this answers such questions as whether Indiana Tech should be accredited by the ABA, whether the school should keep its doors open, or, most importantly, whether it should have even opened its doors in the first place. Those who promoted the idea of a fifth law school in Indiana need to do a lot of soul-searching regarding their decisions. These same people should never be allowed, again, to have a say about the future of legal education in this state or anywhere else. Indiana already has four law schools. That's probably one more than it really needs. But it's more than enough.

  5. This man Steve Hubbard goes on any online post or forum he can find and tries to push his company. He said court reporters would be obsolete a few years ago, yet here we are. How does he have time to search out every single post about court reporters and even spy in private court reporting forums if his company is so successful???? Dude, get a life. And back to what this post was about, I agree that some national firms cause a huge problem.