ILNews

Opinions June 27, 2013

June 27, 2013
Keywords
Back to TopE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

Indiana Court of Appeals
Timothy W. Parish v. State of Indiana
64A03-1210-CR-438
Criminal. Finds trial court properly denied Parish’s request for counsel at public expense because he had $130,000 in equity in his house, but the facts and circumstances of the case do not warrant a knowing and intelligent waiver of his right to counsel because the trial court did not advise him of the dangers and disadvantages of self-representation. Remands for a new trial.

Term. of the Parent-Child Rel. of: S.S., J.S., and C.S. (Minor Children) and, T.S. (Mother) v. The Indiana Dept. of Child Services
09A02-1211-JT-936
Juvenile. Affirms mother was not denied due process when the juvenile court denied her motion to continue a termination hearing. Mother was represented by counsel, voluntarily left Indiana and was aware of the hearing.

Terry L. Sturgis, Sr. v. State of Indiana
71A03-1207-CR-330
Criminal. Affirms convictions of murder, two counts of Class B felony criminal confinement, four counts of Class B felony battery, three counts of Class C felony battery, one count of Class A misdemeanor battery and two counts of Class D felony neglect of a dependent. There are no double jeopardy violations and there is ample evidence from which a reasonable trier of fact could determine that Sturgis knowingly killed his 10-year-old son.

Stephen G. Smith v. Board of School Trustees of the Monroe County Community School Corporation
53A01-1211-MI-511
Miscellaneous. Affirms order affirming the decision of the board of school trustees to terminate Smith’s teaching contract. There is substantial evidence to support the decision and the board followed proper procedures in cancelling the contract.

Hickory Creek at Connersville v. Estate of Otto K. Combs
21A04-1211-ES-600
Estate, supervised. The trial court did not err in denying Hickory Creek’s claim against Otto Combs’ estate because it did not first pursue Marianne Combs. According to the doctrine of necessaries, a creditor must first seek satisfaction from the income and property of the spouse who incurred the debt, and only if those resources are insufficient may a creditor seek satisfaction from the non-contracting spouse.

D.D. v. D.P. (NFP)
49A02-1211-DR-896
Domestic relation. Remands for further proceedings because the trial court applied the incorrect standard for the burden of proof.

Angela Spurgeon v. Review Board of the Indiana Dept. of Workforce Development and French Lick Professional Management, Inc. (NFP)
93A02-1210-EX-861
Agency action. Affirms denial of unemployment benefits.

Timothy Alex Lear v. State of Indiana (NFP)
65A01-1209-CR-426
Criminal. Affirms conviction of murder and 60-year sentence.

Jeffrey Baker v. State of Indiana (NFP)
67A01-1301-PC-1
Post conviction. Affirms denial of petition for post-conviction relief.

Noel Stack v. State of Indiana (NFP)
29A02-1211-CR-951
Criminal. Affirms sentence following guilty plea to Class D felony theft, but reverses restitution order and remands with instructions to vacate the order.

C.S. v. Review Board of the Indiana Dept. of Workforce Development (NFP)
93A02-1209-EX-774
Agency action. Affirms denial of unemployment benefits.

S.L. v. State of Indiana (NFP)
49A02-1211-JV-937
Juvenile. Affirms adjudication for child molesting, which would be a Class B felony if committed by an adult.

Noah Mani v. State of Indiana (NFP)
49A05-1211-CR-569
Criminal. Affirms revocation of community corrections placement.

Nephrology Specialists, P.C., Shahabul Arfeen, M.D., Sanjeev Rastogi, M.D., Maher Ajam, M.D., and Raied Abdullah, M.D. v. Asim Chughtai, M.D., Rafael Fletes, M.D., et al. (NFP)
45A03-1212-CT-535
Civil tort. Reverses denial of Nephrology Specialists’ motion for injunctive relief as the trial court abused its discretion in determining that certain non-compete contractual provisions were rescinded following a board meeting.

Jacob K. Smith v. County of Hancock, Indiana (NFP)
33A04-1212-MI-626
Miscellaneous. Affirms dismissal from the Hancock County Sheriff’s Department following a hearing on charges of misconduct.

Gerry Lucas v. State of Indiana (NFP)
49A05-1210-CR-532
Criminal. Affirms conviction of Class A misdemeanor battery.

Leonard Shaw v. State of Indiana (NFP)
71A03-1210-CR-433
Criminal. Affirms three-year sentence for Class D felony counterfeiting.

The Indiana Supreme Court and 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. I work with some older lawyers in the 70s, 80s, and they are sharp as tacks compared to the foggy minded, undisciplined, inexperienced, listless & aimless "youths" being churned out by the diploma mill law schools by the tens of thousands. A client is generally lucky to land a lawyer who has decided to stay in practice a long time. Young people shouldn't kid themselves. Experience is golden especially in something like law. When you start out as a new lawyer you are about as powerful as a babe in the cradle. Whereas the silver halo of age usually crowns someone who can strike like thunder.

  2. YES I WENT THROUGH THIS BEFORE IN A DIFFERENT SITUATION WITH MY YOUNGEST SON PEOPLE NEED TO LEAVE US ALONE WITH DCS IF WE ARE NOT HURTING OR NEGLECT OUR CHILDREN WHY ARE THEY EVEN CALLED OUT AND THE PEOPLE MAKING FALSE REPORTS NEED TO GO TO JAIL AND HAVE A CLASS D FELONY ON THERE RECORD TO SEE HOW IT FEELS. I WENT THREW ALOT WHEN HE WAS TAKEN WHAT ELSE DOES THESE SCHOOL WANT ME TO SERVE 25 YEARS TO LIFE ON LIES THERE TELLING OR EVEN LE SAME THING LIED TO THE COUNTY PROSECUTOR JUST SO I WOULD GET ARRESTED AND GET TIME HE THOUGHT AND IT TURNED OUT I DID WHAT I HAD TO DO NOT PROUD OF WHAT HAPPEN AND SHOULD KNOW ABOUT SEEKING MEDICAL ATTENTION FOR MY CHILD I AM DISABLED AND SICK OF GETTING TREATED BADLY HOW WOULD THEY LIKE IT IF I CALLED APS ON THEM FOR A CHANGE THEN THEY CAN COME AND ARREST THEM RIGHT OUT OF THE SCHOOL. NOW WE ARE HOMELESS AND THE CHILDREN ARE STAYING WITH A RELATIVE AND GUARDIAN AND THE SCHOOL WON'T LET THEM GO TO SCHOOL THERE BUT WANT THEM TO GO TO SCHOOL WHERE BULLYING IS ALLOWED REAL SMART THINKING ON A SCHOOL STAFF.

  3. Family court judges never fail to surprise me with their irrational thinking. First of all any man who abuses his wife is not fit to be a parent. A man who can't control his anger should not be allowed around his child unsupervised period. Just because he's never been convicted of abusing his child doesn't mean he won't and maybe he hasn't but a man that has such poor judgement and control is not fit to parent without oversight - only a moron would think otherwise. Secondly, why should the mother have to pay? He's the one who made the poor decisions to abuse and he should be the one to pay the price - monetarily and otherwise. Yes it's sad that the little girl may be deprived of her father, but really what kind of father is he - the one that abuses her mother the one that can't even step up and do what's necessary on his own instead the abused mother is to pay for him???? What is this Judge thinking? Another example of how this world rewards bad behavior and punishes those who do right. Way to go Judge - NOT.

  4. Right on. Legalize it. We can take billions away from the drug cartels and help reduce violence in central America and more unwanted illegal immigration all in one fell swoop. cut taxes on the savings from needless incarcerations. On and stop eroding our fourth amendment freedom or whatever's left of it.

  5. "...a switch from crop production to hog production "does not constitute a significant change."??? REALLY?!?! Any judge that cannot see a significant difference between a plant and an animal needs to find another line of work.

ADVERTISEMENT