ILNews

Opinions June 27, 2012

June 27, 2012
Keywords
Back to TopE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

The following Indiana Supreme Court opinion was posted after IL deadline Tuesday:
Michael Sharp v. State of Indiana
12S02-1109-CR-544
Criminal. Affirms sentence for two counts of child molesting, one as a Class A felony and one as a Class C felony. Holds that credit time status may be considered by an appellate court exercising its review and revise authority. Finds that Sharp’s sentence of 40 years, with a minimum possible sentence of 34.29 years after taking into account credit time, is appropriate.

Wednesday’s opinions
7th Circuit Court of Appeals

A.B., a child by his next friend, Linda Kehoe v. Housing Authority of South Bend
11-2581
U.S. District Court, Northern District of Indiana, South Bend Division, Chief Judge Philip P. Simon.
Civil. Dismisses appeal of the order denying A.B.’s motion for a preliminary injunction to prevent the housing authority from pursuing the eviction in state court. Since A.B. has already been evicted, the appeal is moot.

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

Indiana Court of Appeals

Gunther Kranz and Carol Kranz v. Meyers Subdivision Property Owners Association, Inc., Christopher Bartoszek, and Indiana Dept. of Natural Resources
75A03-1112-PL-577
Civil plenary. Affirms trial court affirmation of the decision by the administrative law judge that easement holders should be allowed to have a group pier on Bass Lake and the Kranzes should move their pier to accommodate the group pier. The Natural Resources Commission has jurisdiction to render a decision regarding property rights to the extent necessary to implement the permit process and the only effect of the NRC’s decision on the Kranzes’ property rights was to relocate the pier. The pier was no less usable in the location chosen by the NRC.

Fili Moala v. State of Indiana
49A02-1109-CR-870
Criminal. Reverses conviction of Class C misdemeanor operating a vehicle while intoxicated due to double jeopardy violations. The operating while intoxicated conviction has the less severe penal consequences. Affirms conviction of Class B misdemeanor public intoxication. Remands with instructions to vacate the Class C misdemeanor conviction.

Cory Heinzman v. State of Indiana
29A02-1012-CR-1327
Criminal. Affirms convictions of three counts of Class C felony child molesting in one cause and conviction following guilty plea to Class D felony sexual battery in another cause. The delay in Heinzman’s trial did not violate his constitutional right to a speedy trial, the admission of certain evidence was allowed, and there is no error in his sentence.

 

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