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
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. The practitioners and judges who hail E-filing as the Saviour of the West need to contain their respective excitements. E-filing is federal court requires the practitioner to cram his motion practice into pigeonholes created by IT people. Compound motions or those seeking alternative relief are effectively barred, unless the practitioner wants to receive a tart note from some functionary admonishing about the "problem". E-filing is just another method by which courts and judges transfer their burden to practitioners, who are the really the only powerless components of the system. Of COURSE it is easier for the court to require all of its imput to conform to certain formats, but this imposition does NOT improve the quality of the practice of law and does NOT improve the ability of the practitioner to advocate for his client or to fashion pleadings that exactly conform to his client's best interests. And we should be very wary of the disingenuous pablum about the costs. The courts will find a way to stick it to the practitioner. Lake County is a VERY good example of this rapaciousness. Any one who does not believe this is invited to review the various special fees that system imposes upon practitioners- as practitioners- and upon each case ON TOP of the court costs normal in every case manually filed. Jurisprudence according to Aldous Huxley.

  2. Any attorneys who practice in federal court should be able to say the same as I can ... efiling is great. I have been doing it in fed court since it started way back. Pacer has its drawbacks, but the ability to hit an e-docket and pull up anything and everything onscreen is a huge plus for a litigator, eps the sole practitioner, who lacks a filing clerk and the paralegal support of large firms. Were I an Indiana attorney I would welcome this great step forward.

  3. Can we get full disclosure on lobbyist's payments to legislatures such as Mr Buck? AS long as there are idiots that are disrespectful of neighbors and intent on shooting fireworks every night, some kind of regulations are needed.

  4. I am the mother of the child in this case. My silence on the matter was due to the fact that I filed, both in Illinois and Indiana, child support cases. I even filed supporting documentation with the Indiana family law court. Not sure whether this information was provided to the court of appeals or not. Wish the case was done before moving to Indiana, because no matter what, there is NO WAY the state of Illinois would have allowed an appeal on a child support case!

  5. "No one is safe when the Legislature is in session."

ADVERTISEMENT