ILNews

Opinions July 6, 2010

July 6, 2010
Keywords
Back to TopE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

Today’s opinions

Indiana Supreme Court posted no opinions before IL deadline.

Indiana Court of Appeals

Derrick Bush v. State of Indiana
49A02-0907-CR-682
Criminal. On rehearing, reaffirms its ruling reversing Bush’s conviction of carrying a handgun without a license. Court of Appeals originally reversed the conviction after it held a canine sniff and resulting warrantless search of Bush’s automobile violated the Fourth Amendment because the state did not meet its burden of showing the traffic stop was not unreasonably prolonged or there was independent reasonable suspicion to justify the canine sniff.

George H. Culbertson v. State of Indiana
63A01-1002-CR-68
Criminal. Affirms Culbertson’s conviction following a bench trial for Class C felony nonsupport of a dependent child. The total amount of support arrearage due was $37,400. Following a sentencing hearing on Dec. 3, 2009, the trial court sentenced Culbertson to eight years, with two years suspended to probation.

Terry Huddleston v. State of Indiana (NFP)
15A04-0912-CR-705
Criminal. Affirms conviction of and sentence for possession of a controlled substance with intent to deliver following guilty plea.

Sylvario Wilson v. State of Indiana (NFP)
79A05-1003-CR-158
Criminal. Affirms trial court’s denial of motion to withdraw a guilty plea. Remands for clarification of sentence or a new sentencing determination.

L.M., et al., Alleged to be Children in Need of Services; N.D. v. Marion County Dept. of Child Services and Child Advocates Inc. (NFP)
49A04-0911-JV-644
Juvenile. Reverses juvenile court’s adjudication of children, Le.M., L.M. Jr., and J.D., as children in need of services.
 
Roger L. Storey v. State of Indiana (NFP)
57A05-1001-CR-40
Criminal. Affirms six-year executed sentence following a guilty plea to Class C felony nonsupport of a dependent child.
 
Bryan Claywell v. State of Indiana (NFP)
49A02-0912-CR-1214
Criminal. Reverses conviction following bench trial for Class A felony child molesting.
 
Vidal Clayton v. State of Indiana (NFP)
21A01-1001-CR-9
Criminal. Affirms trial court’s order that the sentence imposed following guilty plea to Class A felony conspiracy to commit murder be served consecutively to a sentence imposed following an unrelated conviction.
 
Frank Byers v. State of Indiana (NFP)
49A02-0910-CR-966
Criminal. Affirms convictions of Class A felony burglary, Class B felony robbery, and Class C felony criminal confinement.
 
Benjamin L. Underwood v. State of Indiana (NFP)
20A05-0912-CR-707
Criminal. Affirms convictions of and sentences for murder and conspiracy to commit aggravated battery.
 
H & L Motors, LLC v. Millennium Auto Group Inc. (NFP)
43A03-1002-PL-105
Civil. Affirms trial court’s order dismissing H&L Motors’ complaint against Millennium Auto Group Inc.

Indiana Tax Court posted no opinions before IL deadline.
 

ADVERTISEMENT

Sponsored by
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. He TIL team,please zap this comment too since it was merely marking a scammer and not reflecting on the story. Thanks, happy Monday, keep up the fine work.

  2. You just need my social security number sent to your Gmail account to process then loan, right? Beware scammers indeed.

  3. The appellate court just said doctors can be sued for reporting child abuse. The most dangerous form of child abuse with the highest mortality rate of any form of child abuse (between 6% and 9% according to the below listed studies). Now doctors will be far less likely to report this form of dangerous child abuse in Indiana. If you want to know what this is, google the names Lacey Spears, Julie Conley (and look at what happened when uninformed judges returned that child against medical advice), Hope Ybarra, and Dixie Blanchard. Here is some really good reporting on what this allegation was: http://media.star-telegram.com/Munchausenmoms/ Here are the two research papers: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/0145213487900810 http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0145213403000309 25% of sibling are dead in that second study. 25%!!! Unbelievable ruling. Chilling. Wrong.

  4. Mr. Levin says that the BMV engaged in misconduct--that the BMV (or, rather, someone in the BMV) knew Indiana motorists were being overcharged fees but did nothing to correct the situation. Such misconduct, whether engaged in by one individual or by a group, is called theft (defined as knowingly or intentionally exerting unauthorized control over the property of another person with the intent to deprive the other person of the property's value or use). Theft is a crime in Indiana (as it still is in most of the civilized world). One wonders, then, why there have been no criminal prosecutions of BMV officials for this theft? Government misconduct doesn't occur in a vacuum. An individual who works for or oversees a government agency is responsible for the misconduct. In this instance, somebody (or somebodies) with the BMV, at some time, knew Indiana motorists were being overcharged. What's more, this person (or these people), even after having the error of their ways pointed out to them, did nothing to fix the problem. Instead, the overcharges continued. Thus, the taxpayers of Indiana are also on the hook for the millions of dollars in attorneys fees (for both sides; the BMV didn't see fit to avail itself of the services of a lawyer employed by the state government) that had to be spent in order to finally convince the BMV that stealing money from Indiana motorists was a bad thing. Given that the BMV official(s) responsible for this crime continued their misconduct, covered it up, and never did anything until the agency reached an agreeable settlement, it seems the statute of limitations for prosecuting these folks has not yet run. I hope our Attorney General is paying attention to this fiasco and is seriously considering prosecution. Indiana, the state that works . . . for thieves.

  5. I'm glad that attorney Carl Hayes, who represented the BMV in this case, is able to say that his client "is pleased to have resolved the issue". Everyone makes mistakes, even bureaucratic behemoths like Indiana's BMV. So to some extent we need to be forgiving of such mistakes. But when those mistakes are going to cost Indiana taxpayers millions of dollars to rectify (because neither plaintiff's counsel nor Mr. Hayes gave freely of their services, and the BMV, being a state-funded agency, relies on taxpayer dollars to pay these attorneys their fees), the agency doesn't have a right to feel "pleased to have resolved the issue". One is left wondering why the BMV feels so pleased with this resolution? The magnitude of the agency's overcharges might suggest to some that, perhaps, these errors were more than mere oversight. Could this be why the agency is so "pleased" with this resolution? Will Indiana motorists ever be assured that the culture of incompetence (if not worse) that the BMV seems to have fostered is no longer the status quo? Or will even more "overcharges" and lawsuits result? It's fairly obvious who is really "pleased to have resolved the issue", and it's not Indiana's taxpayers who are on the hook for the legal fees generated in these cases.

ADVERTISEMENT