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

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. Hail to our Constitutional Law Expert in the Executive Office! “What you’re not paying attention to is the fact that I just took an action to change the law,” Obama said.

  2. What is this, the Ind Supreme Court thinking that there is a separation of powers and limited enumerated powers as delegated by a dusty old document? Such eighteen century thinking, so rare and unwanted by the elites in this modern age. Dictate to us, dictate over us, the massess are chanting! George Soros agrees. Time to change with times Ind Supreme Court, says all President Snows. Rule by executive decree is the new black.

  3. I made the same argument before a commission of the Indiana Supreme Court and then to the fedeal district and federal appellate courts. Fell flat. So very glad to read that some judges still beleive that evidentiary foundations matter.

  4. KUDOS to the Indiana Supreme Court for realizing that some bureacracies need to go to the stake. Recall what RWR said: "No government ever voluntarily reduces itself in size. Government programs, once launched, never disappear. Actually, a government bureau is the nearest thing to eternal life we'll ever see on this earth!" NOW ... what next to this rare and inspiring chopping block? Well, the Commission on Gender and Race (but not religion!?!) is way overdue. And some other Board's could be cut with a positive for State and the reputation of the Indiana judiciary.

  5. During a visit where an informant with police wears audio and video, does the video necessary have to show hand to hand transaction of money and narcotics?

ADVERTISEMENT