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. Indianapolis employers harassment among minorities AFRICAN Americans needs to be discussed the metro Indianapolis area is horrible when it comes to harassing African American employees especially in the local healthcare facilities. Racially profiling in the workplace is an major issue. Please make it better because I'm many civil rights leaders would come here and justify that Indiana is a state the WORKS only applies to Caucasian Americans especially in Hamilton county. Indiana targets African Americans in the workplace so when governor pence is trying to convince people to vote for him this would be awesome publicity for the Presidency Elections.

  2. Wishing Mary Willis only God's best, and superhuman strength, as she attempts to right a ship that too often strays far off course. May she never suffer this personal affect, as some do who attempt to change a broken system: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QojajMsd2nE

  3. Indiana's seatbelt law is not punishable as a crime. It is an infraction. Apparently some of our Circuit judges have deemed settled law inapplicable if it fails to fit their litmus test of political correctness. Extrapolating to redefine terms of behavior in a violation of immigration law to the entire body of criminal law leaves a smorgasbord of opportunity for judicial mischief.

  4. I wonder if $10 diversions for failure to wear seat belts are considered moral turpitude in federal immigration law like they are under Indiana law? Anyone know?

  5. 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

ADVERTISEMENT