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. You can put your photos anywhere you like... When someone steals it they know it doesn't belong to them. And, a man getting a divorce is automatically not a nice guy...? That's ridiculous. Since when is need of money a conflict of interest? That would mean that no one should have a job unless they are already financially solvent without a job... A photographer is also under no obligation to use a watermark (again, people know when a photo doesn't belong to them) or provide contact information. Hey, he didn't make it easy for me to pay him so I'll just take it! Well heck, might as well walk out of the grocery store with a cart full of food because the lines are too long and you don't find that convenient. "Only in Indiana." Oh, now you're passing judgement on an entire state... What state do you live in? I need to characterize everyone in your state as ignorant and opinionated. And the final bit of ignorance; assuming a photo anyone would want is lucky and then how much does your camera have to cost to make it a good photo, in your obviously relevant opinion?

  2. Seventh Circuit Court Judge Diane Wood has stated in “The Rule of Law in Times of Stress” (2003), “that neither laws nor the procedures used to create or implement them should be secret; and . . . the laws must not be arbitrary.” According to the American Bar Association, Wood’s quote drives home this point: The rule of law also requires that people can expect predictable results from the legal system; this is what Judge Wood implies when she says that “the laws must not be arbitrary.” Predictable results mean that people who act in the same way can expect the law to treat them in the same way. If similar actions do not produce similar legal outcomes, people cannot use the law to guide their actions, and a “rule of law” does not exist.

  3. Linda, I sure hope you are not seeking a law license, for such eighteenth century sentiments could result in your denial in some jurisdictions minting attorneys for our tolerant and inclusive profession.

  4. Mazel Tov to the newlyweds. And to those bakers, photographers, printers, clerks, judges and others who will lose careers and social standing for not saluting the New World (Dis)Order, we can all direct our Two Minutes of Hate as Big Brother asks of us. Progress! Onward!

  5. My daughter was taken from my home at the end of June/2014. I said I would sign the safety plan but my husband would not. My husband said he would leave the house so my daughter could stay with me but the case worker said no her mind is made up she is taking my daughter. My daughter went to a friends and then the friend filed a restraining order which she was told by dcs if she did not then they would take my daughter away from her. The restraining order was not in effect until we were to go to court. Eventually it was dropped but for 2 months DCS refused to allow me to have any contact and was using the restraining order as the reason but it was not in effect. This was Dcs violating my rights. Please help me I don't have the money for an attorney. Can anyone take this case Pro Bono?

ADVERTISEMENT