ILNews

Opinions June 13, 2012

June 13, 2012
Keywords
Back to TopE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

The following Indiana Supreme Court opinion was posted after IL deadline Tuesday:
Michael W. Baker v. State of Indiana
89S01-1109-CR-543
Criminal. Affirms conviction of Class B felony burglary, finding the evidence suggesting that Baker opened cupboards and drawers in the kitchen is enough to support a reasonable inference that the defendant entered the church with intent to commit theft inside.

Wednesday’s opinions
7th Circuit Court of Appeals

United States of America v. Cristofer Tichenor
11-2433
U.S. District Court, Southern District of Indiana, Indianapolis Division, Judge Sarah Evans Barker
Criminal. Affirms 300-month sentence following guilty plea to armed robbery and discharging a firearm in connection with robbing a bank. Rejects Tichenor’s argument that the career offender sentencing guideline is unconstitutionally vague, finding that the guidelines are not susceptible to vagueness challenges and the U.S. Sentencing Commission did not exceed its authority by promulgating the “crime of violence” definition.

Indiana Supreme Court and Indiana Tax Court posted no opinions at IL deadline.

Indiana Court of Appeals

In Re the Matter of: B.N. and H.C., Children in Need of Services; M.C. v. Marion Co. Dept. of Child Services and Child Advocates, Inc.
49A02-1110-JC-1025
Juvenile. Reverses determination that children are in need of services. There is insufficient evidence to support the determination that the children’s physical or mental conditions were seriously impaired or endangered as a result of the inability, refusal or neglect of the parent to supply the children with food, clothing, shelter, medical care, education or supervision.

Anthony D. Gorman v. State of Indiana
49A05-1110-CR-556
Criminal. Affirms convictions of two counts of Class B felony robbery while armed with a deadly weapon. There is sufficient evidence to support his convictions.

Dennis Jack Horner v. Marcia (Horner) Carter
34A02-1111-DR-1029
Domestic relation. Affirms denial of Horner’s request to modify the terms of a mediated settlement agreement. Alternative Dispute Resolution Rule 2.11 and Indiana Evidence Rule 408 allow the introduction of mediation communications to establish traditional contract defenses, so the trial court erred in excluding the evidence of mediation communications to establish that a mistake occurred in drafting the agreement.  But his testimony about the mediation communications falls short of establishing any mistake that might entitle him to relief, so this was a harmless error. The trial court properly determined that the agreement in this case provided for a property settlement that survived Carter’s remarriage.

Chad Stewart v. State of Indiana (NFP)
79A02-1110-CR-972
Criminal. Affirms sentence following guilty plea to two counts of Class B felony child molesting.

Auto Liquidation Center, Inc. v. McKesha Bates (NFP)
02A03-1111-SC-553
Small claim. Affirms judgment in favor of Bates on her breach of contract and criminal conversion claims. Remands for calculation of appellate attorney fees owed to Bates.

Carl D. Jackson, Jr. v. State of Indiana (NFP)
20A03-1111-CR-500
Criminal. Affirms conviction of Class D felony battery.

Anthony Michael Beck and Sandra Beck, natural parents and next friends of Jacob Leslie Beck, minor v. Scott Memorial Hospital and Larry Hunefeld, M.D. (NFP)
72A01-1107-CC-293
Civil collection. Affirms grant of a motion in limine filed by Scott Memorial Hospital.

 

ADVERTISEMENT

Sponsored by
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. 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.

  2. 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!

  3. This law is troubling in two respects: First, why wasn't the law reviewed "with the intention of getting all the facts surrounding the legislation and its actual impact on the marketplace" BEFORE it was passed and signed? Seems a bit backwards to me (even acknowledging that this is the Indiana state legislature we're talking about. Second, what is it with the laws in this state that seem to create artificial monopolies in various industries? Besides this one, the other law that comes to mind is the legislation that governed the granting of licenses to firms that wanted to set up craft distilleries. The licensing was limited to only those entities that were already in the craft beer brewing business. Republicans in this state talk a big game when it comes to being "business friendly". They're friendly alright . . . to certain businesses.

  4. Gretchen, Asia, Roberto, Tonia, Shannon, Cheri, Nicholas, Sondra, Carey, Laura ... my heart breaks for you, reaching out in a forum in which you are ignored by a professional suffering through both compassion fatigue and the love of filthy lucre. Most if not all of you seek a warm blooded Hoosier attorney unafraid to take on the government and plead that government officials have acted unconstitutionally to try to save a family and/or rescue children in need and/or press individual rights against the Leviathan state. I know an attorney from Kansas who has taken such cases across the country, arguing before half of the federal courts of appeal and presenting cases to the US S.Ct. numerous times seeking cert. Unfortunately, due to his zeal for the constitutional rights of peasants and willingness to confront powerful government bureaucrats seemingly violating the same ... he was denied character and fitness certification to join the Indiana bar, even after he was cleared to sit for, and passed, both the bar exam and ethics exam. And was even admitted to the Indiana federal bar! NOW KNOW THIS .... you will face headwinds and difficulties in locating a zealously motivated Hoosier attorney to face off against powerful government agents who violate the constitution, for those who do so tend to end up as marginalized as Paul Odgen, who was driven from the profession. So beware, many are mere expensive lapdogs, the kind of breed who will gladly take a large retainer, but then fail to press against the status quo and powers that be when told to heel to. It is a common belief among some in Indiana that those attorneys who truly fight the power and rigorously confront corruption often end up, actually or metaphorically, in real life or at least as to their careers, as dead as the late, great Gary Welch. All of that said, I wish you the very best in finding a Hoosier attorney with a fighting spirit to press your rights as far as you can, for you do have rights against government actors, no matter what said actors may tell you otherwise. Attorneys outside the elitist camp are often better fighters that those owing the powers that be for their salaries, corner offices and end of year bonuses. So do not be afraid to retain a green horn or unconnected lawyer, many of them are fine men and woman who are yet untainted by the "unique" Hoosier system.

  5. I am not the John below. He is a journalist and talk show host who knows me through my years working in Kansas government. I did no ask John to post the note below ...

ADVERTISEMENT