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
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. CCHP's real accomplishment is the 2015 law signed by Gov Pence that basically outlaws any annexation that is forced where a 65% majority of landowners in the affected area disagree. Regardless of whether HP wins or loses, the citizens of Indiana will not have another fiasco like this. The law Gov Pence signed is a direct result of this malgovernance.

  2. I gave tempparry guardship to a friend of my granddaughter in 2012. I went to prison. I had custody. My daughter went to prison to. We are out. My daughter gave me custody but can get her back. She was not order to give me custody . but now we want granddaughter back from friend. She's 14 now. What rights do we have

  3. This sure is not what most who value good governance consider the Rule of Law to entail: "In a letter dated March 2, which Brizzi forwarded to IBJ, the commission dismissed the grievance “on grounds that there is not reasonable cause to believe that you are guilty of misconduct.”" Yet two month later reasonable cause does exist? (Or is the commission forging ahead, the need for reasonable belief be damned? -- A seeming violation of the Rules of Profession Ethics on the part of the commission) Could the rule of law theory cause one to believe that an explanation is in order? Could it be that Hoosier attorneys live under Imperial Law (which is also a t-word that rhymes with infamy) in which the Platonic guardians can do no wrong and never owe the plebeian class any explanation for their powerful actions. (Might makes it right?) Could this be a case of politics directing the commission, as celebrated IU Mauer Professor (the late) Patrick Baude warned was happening 20 years ago in his controversial (whisteblowing) ethics lecture on a quite similar topic: http://www.repository.law.indiana.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1498&context=ilj

  4. I have a case presently pending cert review before the SCOTUS that reveals just how Indiana regulates the bar. I have been denied licensure for life for holding the wrong views and questioning the grand inquisitors as to their duties as to state and federal constitutional due process. True story: https://www.scribd.com/doc/299040839/2016Petitionforcert-to-SCOTUS Shorter, Amici brief serving to frame issue as misuse of govt licensure: https://www.scribd.com/doc/312841269/Thomas-More-Society-Amicus-Brown-v-Ind-Bd-of-Law-Examiners

  5. Here's an idea...how about we MORE heavily regulate the law schools to reduce the surplus of graduates, driving starting salaries up for those new grads, so that we can all pay our insane amount of student loans off in a reasonable amount of time and then be able to afford to do pro bono & low-fee work? I've got friends in other industries, radiology for example, and their schools accept a very limited number of students so there will never be a glut of new grads and everyone's pay stays high. For example, my radiologist friend's school accepted just six new students per year.

ADVERTISEMENT