ILNews

Opinions March 13, 2012

March 13, 2012
Keywords
Back to TopE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

The following Indiana Supreme Court opinion was posted after IL deadline yesterday:

In the Matter of: Carl J. Brizzi
49S00-0910-DI-425
Disciplinary. Supreme Court issued a public reprimand for former Marion County Prosecutor Carl Brizzi, finding that he violated Indiana Professional Conduct Rules 3.6(a) and 3.8(f) by making public statements as a prosecutor that had a substantial likelihood of materially prejudicing an adjudicative proceeding and a substantial likelihood of heightening public condemnation of the criminal defendants. Court rules that “actual prejudice” is not required and court defines “public record” as government documents, such as probable cause affidavits.

Today’s opinions:

Indiana Supreme Court and Indiana Tax Court had filed no opinions by IL deadline.

7th Circuit Court of Appeals

Shannon McComas v. Edward Brickley
United States District Court, Southern District of Indiana, Indianapolis Division, Judge Sarah Evans Barker.
11-2138
Civil. Reverses District Court’s denial of Brickley’s motion for summary judgment. McComas filed suit against Brickley for false arrest after the charges against McComas were dropped.
But Brickley claimed that he had probable cause to arrest McComas and qualified immunity in his role as a police officer. The 7th Circuit agreed and held the District Court erred in its determination of qualified immunity. It remanded with instructions consistent with its opinion.

Julie A. Smith v. Lafayette Bank & Trust Company
United States District Court, Northern District of Indiana, Hammond Division, Judge Jon E. DeGuilio.
10-3556
Civil. Affirms grant of summary judgment against Smith in her claim that Lafayette Bank & Trust retaliated against her for filing an age discrimination complaint under the Age Discrimination in Employment Act, holding that Smith was unable to show that the bank administrators who terminated her were ever aware that she filed a charge of discrimination, and that she filed that charge five months after she was terminated.

Indiana Court of Appeals
The Guardianship of Harold G. Gardner, Scott A. Gardner, Guardian v. Carl Prochno
50A03-1108-PL-385
Civil plenary. Affirms grant of summary judgment in favor of Prochno, holding that per Indiana Code 32-31-1, the Gardners did not provide in a timely manner a notice to terminate tenancy of farm land.

Kenneth Akers v. State of Indiana
49A05-1106-CR-313
Criminal. Affirms convictions of and sentences for battery, resisting law enforcement and possession of paraphernalia, all Class A misdemeanors. Akers raised one question for review: Whether Indiana Code 35-50-1-2 violates the Equal Protection Clause of the United States Constitution or Article 1, Section 23 of the Indiana Constitution because the statute limits the imposition of consecutive sentences when someone is convicted of at least one felony, but no such statute exists limiting the imposition of consecutive sentences for those convicted of only misdemeanors. But the COA held that Akers’ offenses were separate and distinct, and therefore IC 35-50-1-2 does not apply.

Alfred Taylor v. State of Indiana (NFP)
15A04-1109-CR-500
Criminal. Affirms court’s revocation of probation and order that Taylor serve 1,825 days of his previously suspended sentence.

Ralph Winfrey v. NLMP, Inc. and Witham Health Services (NFP)

06A01-1103-PL-132
Civil plenary. Reverses grant of summary judgment in favor of NLMP and Witham Health Services, holding that the court erred in determining Winfrey’s claims were based on speculation. Remands for further proceedings.

Matthew G. Fearnow v. State of Indiana (NFP)
20A03-1107-CR-341
Criminal. Vacates Fearnow’s conviction of Class B misdemeanor harassment and remands for new trial, holding that the trial court did not adequately advise him of the risks of proceeding pro se. Affirms trial court’s grant of the state’s second motion to amend charging information, holding the location where harassing phone messages were received did not affect Fearnow’s rights.

Matthew Jordan v. State of Indiana (NFP)
35A04-1108-CR-484
Criminal. Affirms sentence for four counts of Class C felony forgery.

Rondell Walker v. State of Indiana (NFP)
34A02-1101-CR-612
Criminal. Affirms Walker’s termination from the Howard County Drug Court program and the sentence imposed on his underlying conviction of Class B felony possession of cocaine.

Douglas R. Denmure, Personal Rep. of the Estate of Eugene D. Trester, Deceased v. Michael S. Gridley, Personal Rep. of the Estate of Alice F. Grindley, Deceased (NFP)
49A02-1109-ES-905
Estate supervised. Reverses trial court’s order approving the personal representative’s accounting, supplemental accounting, petition for order approving distribution, and closing the estate, holding Denmure has established prima facie error. Remands for further proceedings, including a consideration of Denmure’s request for additional attorney fees pursuant to the terms of the mediated settlement agreement.

Joshua Love v. State of Indiana (NFP)
49A02-1107-CR-629
Criminal. Affirms conviction of Class D felony escape and adjudication as a habitual offender.

Elwin Hart v. State of Indiana (NFP)

49A02-1107-CR-583
Criminal. Affirms convictions of murder.

Aaron Lee v. State of Indiana (NFP)
49A02-1108-CR-784
Criminal. Reverses Lee’s convictions of Class B felony criminal confinement and Class C felony intimidation, holding  the court’s instructions did not adequately instruct the jury on the presumption of innocence. Remands for new trial.

T.W. v. State of Indiana (NFP)
49A02-1108-JV-832
Juvenile. Affirms adjudication as a delinquent child for committing two counts of battery that would be Class A misdemeanors if committed by an adult.

Michael Jones v. State of Indiana (NFP)
30A01-1108-CR-378
Criminal. Affirms 18-year sentence with three years suspended for Class B felony neglect of a dependent, holding that in light of Jones’ previous conviction of neglect, the sentence was not inappropriate.
 

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