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. 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