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

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