ILNews

Opinions June 5, 2014

June 5, 2014
Keywords
Back to TopE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

The Indiana Tax Court released the following opinions after IL deadline Wednesday:
Jaklin Idris and Dariana Kamenova v. Marion County Assessor
49T10-1108-TA-49
Tax. Finds the Indiana Board of Tax Review did not err in upholding the 2006 assessment of Idris’ and Kamenova’s condominium unit. Rejects their claims the board abused its discretion in finding that Kamenova failed to establish that their property was entitled to an obsolescence adjustment, and in determining that the assessments of the three other units in their building failed to show that their property was over-assessed; and that the board erred in upholding their assessment given the assessor’s improper use of the “one unit multiple units” classification.

Nick Popovich v. Indiana Department of State Revenue (NFP)
49T10-1010-TA-53
Tax. Reaffirms decision to deny Popovich’s second motion to compel because he had not complied with the requirements of Ind. Trial Rule 26(F).

Thursday’s opinions
Indiana Supreme Court

Victor Ponce v. State of Indiana
20S04-1308-PC-533
Post conviction. Reverses the denial of Ponce’s petition for post-conviction relief, which contended that the Spanish translation of the rights he was waiving by entering the plea was so inaccurate his plea was not entered knowingly, intelligently and voluntarily. In this case Ponce carried his initial burden of demonstrating that at the guilty plea hearing he was not properly advised of the constitutional rights he was waiving by pleading guilty. And the state failed to show that the record as a whole nonetheless demonstrated that Ponce understood his constitutional rights and waived them. Remands for further proceedings.

Indiana Court of Appeals
Larry D. Russell, Jr. v. State of Indiana
84A01-1312-CR-532
Criminal. Reverses sentence following guilty plea to five counts of Class C felony neglect of a dependent and two counts of Class C felony criminal confinement. The plea agreement and sentence were based on the faulty premise that Russell’s sentence must be limited to 10 years under I.C. 35-50-1-2(c). Remands for Russell to have the option to ratify and proceed with the current plea agreement without the illegal sentencing limitation; if he does not exercise that option within 30 days after this opinion has been certified, the plea agreement shall be vacated.

Curtis Oakes v. State of Indiana (NFP)
41A01-1308-PC-379
Post conviction. Affirms denial of petition for post-conviction relief.

Keith Scruggs v. State of Indiana (NFP)
49A05-1307-PC-341
Post conviction. Affirms denial of petition for post-conviction relief.

The Indiana Tax Court posted no opinions by IL deadline Thursday. The 7th Circuit Court of Appeals issued 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. 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