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 His breach allowed the government to treat the plea agreement as having been rescinded.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

facebook - twitter on Facebook & Twitter

Indiana State Bar Association

Indianapolis Bar Association

Evansville Bar Association

Allen County Bar Association

Indiana Lawyer on Facebook

facebook
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. It appears the police and prosecutors are allowed to change the rules halfway through the game to suit themselves. I am surprised that the congress has not yet eliminated the right to a trial in cases involving any type of forensic evidence. That would suit their foolish law and order police state views. I say we eliminate the statute of limitations for crimes committed by members of congress and other government employees. Of course they would never do that. They are all corrupt cowards!!!

  2. Poor Judge Brown probably thought that by slavishly serving the godz of the age her violations of 18th century concepts like due process and the rule of law would be overlooked. Mayhaps she was merely a Judge ahead of her time?

  3. in a lawyer discipline case Judge Brown, now removed, was presiding over a hearing about a lawyer accused of the supposedly heinous ethical violation of saying the words "Illegal immigrant." (IN re Barker) http://www.in.gov/judiciary/files/order-discipline-2013-55S00-1008-DI-429.pdf .... I wonder if when we compare the egregious violations of due process by Judge Brown, to her chiding of another lawyer for politically incorrectness, if there are any conclusions to be drawn about what kind of person, what kind of judge, what kind of apparatchik, is busy implementing the agenda of political correctness and making off-limits legit advocacy about an adverse party in a suit whose illegal alien status is relevant? I am just asking the question, the reader can make own conclsuion. Oh wait-- did I use the wrong adjective-- let me rephrase that, um undocumented alien?

  4. of course the bigger questions of whether or not the people want to pay for ANY bussing is off limits, due to the Supreme Court protecting the people from DEMOCRACY. Several decades hence from desegregation and bussing plans and we STILL need to be taking all this taxpayer money to combat mostly-imagined "discrimination" in the most obviously failed social program of the postwar period.

  5. You can put your photos anywhere you like... When someone steals it they know it doesn't belong to them. And, a man getting a divorce is automatically not a nice guy...? That's ridiculous. Since when is need of money a conflict of interest? That would mean that no one should have a job unless they are already financially solvent without a job... A photographer is also under no obligation to use a watermark (again, people know when a photo doesn't belong to them) or provide contact information. Hey, he didn't make it easy for me to pay him so I'll just take it! Well heck, might as well walk out of the grocery store with a cart full of food because the lines are too long and you don't find that convenient. "Only in Indiana." Oh, now you're passing judgement on an entire state... What state do you live in? I need to characterize everyone in your state as ignorant and opinionated. And the final bit of ignorance; assuming a photo anyone would want is lucky and then how much does your camera have to cost to make it a good photo, in your obviously relevant opinion?

ADVERTISEMENT