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. I need an experienced attorney to handle a breach of contract matter. Kindly respond for more details. Graham Young

  2. I thought the slurs were the least grave aspects of her misconduct, since they had nothing to do with her being on the bench. Why then do I suspect they were the focus? I find this a troubling trend. At least she was allowed to keep her law license.

  3. Section 6 of Article I of the Indiana Constitution is pretty clear and unequivocal: "Section 6. No money shall be drawn from the treasury for the benefit of any religious or theological institution."

  4. Video pen? Nice work, "JW"! Let this be a lesson and a caution to all disgruntled ex-spouses (or soon-to-be ex-spouses) . . . you may think that altercation is going to get you some satisfaction . . . it will not.

  5. First comment on this thread is a fitting final comment on this thread, as that the MCBA never answered Duncan's fine question, and now even Eric Holder agrees that the MCBA was in material error as to the facts: "I don't get it" from Duncan December 1, 2014 5:10 PM "The Grand Jury met for 25 days and heard 70 hours of testimony according to this article and they made a decision that no crime occurred. On what basis does the MCBA conclude that their decision was "unjust"? What special knowledge or evidence does the MCBA have that the Grand Jury hearing this matter was unaware of? The system that we as lawyers are sworn to uphold made a decision that there was insufficient proof that officer committed a crime. How can any of us say we know better what was right than the jury that actually heard all of the the evidence in this case."

ADVERTISEMENT