ILNews

Opinions June 14, 2011

June 14, 2011
Keywords
Back to TopE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

Indiana Supreme Court
Alva Curtis v. State of Indiana
49S02-1010-CR-620
Criminal. Reverses denial of Curtis’ motion to dismiss. The trial court should have granted Curtis’ motion to dismiss and discharge because the days that counted toward the Rule 4(C) period exceeded 365. Curtis is not entitled to dismissal on fundamental-fairness grounds because he has not been involuntarily committed and there hasn’t been an appropriate finding that he will never be restored to competency. Remands with instructions to dismiss the charging information.

Douglas Denzell v. State of Indiana
49S02-1106-CR-340
Criminal. Affirms denial of Denzell’s motion to dismiss. Denzell does not have a viable fundamental-fairness argument.

Indiana Court of Appeals
Elmos Jewell v. City of Indianapolis
49A02-1010-OV-1228
Local ordinance violation. Affirms finding Jewell violated Section 531-728 of the Revised Code of the Consolidated City and Marion County concerning animal care and other animal matters. The failure to mention this section in the agreed judgment in a previous violation case did not indicate that the city waived enforcement of that provision.  

T.L. v. J.L.
54A01-1008-DR-386
Domestic relation. Affirms grant of father J.L.’s motion to prevent mother T.L. from relocating to Tennessee with their minor sons. Mother has shown good faith and legitimate reasons for proposing the relocation, but the trial court didn’t err in concluding that the relocation wasn’t in the children’s best interests.

State of Indiana v. Robert Rhodes
49A05-1012-CR-818
Criminal. Affirms grant of Rhodes' motion to suppress after he was charged with operating while intoxicated. The state failed to show that compliance with the statute regarding turn signaling was possible under the circumstances and Rhodes was not properly stopped for a traffic violation. The trial court did not err by determining that the officer lacked reasonable suspicion to stop Rhodes.

Richard D. Williams v. State of Indiana (NFP)

87A05-1101-CR-42
Criminal. Affirms sentence following guilty plea to Class C felony forgery, Class D felony fraud, and Class D felony receiving stolen property.

B.B. v. State of Indiana (NFP)
71A05-1012-JV-791
Juvenile. Affirms modification of order awarding wardship of B.B. to the Indiana Department of Correction.

Karen Vanderbosch v. Thomas Vanderbosch (NFP)
02A03-1007-DR-357
Domestic relation. Reverses order finding that Thomas Vanderbosch overpaid child support, giving him a credit for that overpayment; and finding that one of his children repudiated his relationship with Thomas and thereby eliminated Thomas’ obligation to contribute to post-secondary educational expenses. Remands for further proceedings.

James D. Bailey, Jr. v. State of Indiana (NFP)
45A05-1006-CR-337
Criminal. Affirms conviction of felony murder in perpetration of a robbery.

Purnell L. Moore v. State of Indiana (NFP)
54A01-1011-CR-593
Criminal. Affirms order directing Moore serve the remaining four years of his suspended sentence following the revocation of his probation.

Elizabeth Noll v. State of Indiana (NFP)
29A04-1010-CR-651
Criminal. Affirms conviction of intimidation as a Class A misdemeanor.

James D. Douglas v. State of Indiana (NFP)
73A01-1010-CR-586
Criminal. Affirms revocation of probation and order that Douglas serve one year of his remaining sentence in prison.

David Marsee v. State of Indiana (NFP)
17A03-1010-CR-520
Criminal. Affirms conviction of dealing in methamphetamine as a Class A felony.

Mark Rector Bryan v. Tammy A. Bryan (NFP)

82A01-1008-DR-416
Domestic relation. Affirms calculation of child support obligation of Mark Bryan.

Superior Mortgage Funding, LLC, Jeremie Sheneman, Michael Sheneman and Andrew Beam v. Gladys Zoleko and Paul Davies (NFP)
71A05-1007-PL-432
Civil plenary. Affirms denial of Michael and Jeremie Sheneman’s motion to set aside judgment enforcing their settlement agreement with Gladys Zoleko and Paul Davies. Affirms denial of Michael’s motion to disqualify the plaintiffs’ counsel.

Indiana Tax Court had posted no opinions at IL deadline.
 

ADVERTISEMENT

Sponsored by
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. "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! :/

  2. 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!

  3. 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.

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

  5. A common refrain in the comments on this website comes from people who cannot locate attorneys willing put justice over retainers. At the same time the judiciary threatens to make pro bono work mandatory, seemingly noting the same concern. But what happens to attorneys who have the chumptzah to threatened the legal status quo in Indiana? Ask Gary Welch, ask Paul Ogden, ask me. Speak truth to power, suffer horrendously accordingly. No wonder Hoosier attorneys who want to keep in good graces merely chase the dollars ... the powers that be have no concerns as to those who are ever for sale to the highest bidder ... for those even willing to compromise for $$$ never allow either justice or constitutionality to cause them to stand up to injustice or unconstitutionality. And the bad apples in the Hoosier barrel, like this one, just keep rotting.

ADVERTISEMENT