ILNews

Opinions June 25, 2013

June 25, 2013
Keywords
Back to TopE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

Indiana Supreme Court
Loren Hamilton Fry v. State of Indiana
09S00-1205-CR-361
Criminal. Affirms denial of bail for Fry, who is charged with murder. Holds that when a defendant charged with murder or treason seeks bail, the burden is on the state, if it seeks to deny bail, to show by a preponderance of the evidence that the proof is evident or the presumption strong. Chief Justice Dickson concurs to which Justice Rush joins; Rush concurs; Justice Massa concurs in result and dissents with separate opinion; and Justice Rucker dissents with separate opinion in which Massa concurs.

Erving Sanders v. State of Indiana
49S02-1304-CR-242
Criminal. Affirms denial of motion to suppress evidence obtained following a traffic stop. Proof of compliance with the Window Tint Statute relieves the defendant of any liability for a window tint violation, but it does not serve to vitiate the legality of the traffic stop. The evidence was obtained as a result of a fully justified and legal search.

Barbara A. Johnson and William T. Johnson, Both Individually and as Trustees of the Barbara A. Johnson Living Trust Dated 12-17-1996 v. Joseph Wysocki and M. Carmen Wysocki
45S04-1211-CT-634
Civil tort. Reverses summary judgment in favor of the Wysockis and remands to the trial court for proceedings, holding the trial court erred in determining that defects in a home “should have been obvious to sellers,” a legal standard lower than “actual knowledge.” The court also held that Indiana Disclosure Statutes abrogate the common law principle of caveat emptor for the real estate transactions to which they apply. Justice Robert Rucker concurred with the holdings but would affirm the summary judgment and damages of $13,805.95 for the Wysockis because the record was sufficient to support the outcome.  

Indiana Court of Appeals
Elnesto Ray Valle v. State of Indiana
27A02-1209-CR-772
Criminal. Affirms conviction of Class C felony inmate fraud. The evidence shows that Valle obtained a future interest in the bail money as well as his release from prison, both of which constitute property under Indiana Code 35-31.5-2-253(a). Affirms 16-year aggregate sentence.

George Cole v. State of Indiana
29A02-1301-CR-4
Criminal. Affirms denial of petition for permission to file a belated notice of appeal following Cole’s 1963 murder conviction and life sentence. The trial court did not abuse its discretion by concluding he was not diligent in pursuing permission to file a belated notice of appeal.

Daniel J. Hollen v. State of Indiana
62A04-1211-MI-636
Miscellaneous. Affirms denial of “petition to remove registration act, sexual violent predator status, and global positioning satellite” filed by Hollen. Concludes the Sex Offender Registration Act is non-punitive and is not ex post facto when applied to Hollen.

Timmy T. Zieman v. State of Indiana
45A03-1301-PC-1
Post conviction. Reverses denial of petition for post-conviction relief as the court clearly erred in finding trial counsel did not provide ineffective assistance. Remands with instructions for the court to reduce Zieman’s Class C felony conviction of resisting law enforcement resulting in serious bodily injury to a Class D felony conviction and sentence him to 18 months on that count, for an aggregate sentence of 33 ½ years.

Gerry Scheub, and the Lake County Drainage Board v. Van Kalker Family Limited Partnership, Lake County Trust Company as Trustee of Trust No. 5240 and Singleton Stone, LLC
37A03-1210-PL-453
Civil plenary. Affirms declaratory judgment in favor of the appellees-plaintiffs Van Kalker Family Limited Partnership, Lake County Trust Co as Trustee of Trust No. 5240 and Singleton Stone. The trial court properly denied Scheub’s and the drainage board’s motion to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction because the trial court acquired subject matter jurisdiction because the exhaustion of administrative remedies was excused.

Cornelious Elliott v. State of Indiana (NFP)
48A02-1212-CR-1006
Criminal. Affirms finding Elliott violated the terms of his probation.

Ryan Byfield v. State of Indiana (NFP)
29A02-1210-CR-780
Criminal. Affirms convictions of three counts of Class B felony criminal deviate conduct, finding Byfield is a habitual offender and 50-year aggregate sentence. Remands for limited purpose of correcting an error in the abstract of judgment.

Shawn Anthony Craft v. State of Indiana (NFP)
45A03-1211-CR-458
Criminal. Affirms conviction of Class B felony burglary.

Daniel M. Sulkoske v. Statewide Credit Association (NFP)
32A01-1212-SC-573
Small claim. Affirms judgment in favor of Statewide Credit Association.

The Indiana Tax Court posted no opinions by IL deadline. The 7th Circuit Court of Appeals posted no Indiana decisions by 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. Such things are no more elections than those in the late, unlamented Soviet Union.

  2. 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!!!

  3. 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?

  4. 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?

  5. 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.

ADVERTISEMENT