ILNews

Opinions March 21, 2013

March 21, 2013
Keywords
Back to TopE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

Indiana Supreme Court
Anthony D. Dye v. State of Indiana
20S04-1201-CR-5
Criminal. On rehearing, reaffirms that a person convicted of unlawful possession of a firearm by a serious violent felon may not have his or her sentence enhanced under the general habitual offender statute by proof of the same felony used to establish that the person was a “serious violent felon.” The state is not permitted to support Dye’s habitual offender finding with a conviction that arose out of the same res gestae that was the source of the conviction used to prove Dye was a serious violent felon. Affirms original opinion in all other respects. Justice Massa concurs in part and dissents in part with separate opinion.

Todd J. Crider v. State of Indiana
91S05-1206-CR-306
Criminal. Reverses in part the sentencing order that Crider’s habitual offender enhancement in a White County case be served consecutively to the habitual offender enhancement in a case from Tippecanoe County. Concludes that the waiver of the right to appeal contained in the plea agreement is unenforceable where the sentence imposed is contrary to law and the defendant did not bargain for the sentence.

Indiana Court of Appeals
Clark County Board of Aviation Commissioners v. Dennis Dreyer and Margo Dreyer as Co-Personal Representatives of the Estate of Margaret A. Dreyer
10A01-1206-PL-288
Civil plenary. Affirms denial of the Board of Aviation Commissioners’ Trial Rule 60(B) motion for partial relief from an $865,000 judgment in favor of Margaret Dreyer after the board instituted eminent domain proceedings. Because legal error may not be collaterally attacked, and the commissioners did not object to Dreyer’s July 2009 objections and did not raise the issue in the first appeal, the trial court did not err by denying their Trial Rule 60(B) motion.

Town of Cedar Lake v. Gina Alessia, Candi Reiling, Andrew Balkema, Individually and as Members of the Town of Cedar Lake Park Board
45A03-1207-PL-316
Civil plenary. Reverses summary judgment for the park board members on their claims of illegal termination, declaratory judgment on the validity of the ordinance and injunctive relief. Also reverses the reinstatement order regarding the park board members. The trial court erred when it used Dillon’s Rule to determine the scope of the town’s legal authority to dissolve the park board and Parks Department. The proper legal inquiry is based on Indiana’s Home Rule Act. Affirms the order that the law firm Austgen Kuiper & Associates P.C. may not continue to represent the park board and its members in any matters based on a current conflict of interest.

C.B. v. B.W.
49A02-1206-JP-539
Juvenile. Affirms order granting the father’s request to change the surname of C.D.B. in initial paternity proceedings over the mother’s objections. The trial court’s decision is not clearly against the logic and effect of the facts and circumstances before the court or contrary to law. The mother has not shown reversible error.

Marquis Shipp v. State of Indiana (NFP)
49A02-1204-PC-322
Post conviction. Affirms denial of petition for post-conviction relief.

Arturo Fuentes v. State of Indiana (NFP)
79A02-1208-CR-698
Criminal. Affirms sentence for Class A felony dealing in cocaine and Class C felony possession of cocaine.

Christina J. Epps v. State of Indiana (NFP)
05A02-1207-CR-673
Criminal. Affirms convictions and sentence for two counts of Class A misdemeanor battery and one count of Class B misdemeanor battery.

The Indiana Tax Court posted no decisions by IL deadline. The 7th Circuit Court of Appeals posted 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. 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.

  2. 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!

  3. 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?

  4. If justice is not found in a court room, it's time to clean house!!! Even judges are accountable to a higher Judge!!!

  5. The small claims system, based on my recent and current usage of it, is not exactly a shining example of justice prevailing. The system appears slow and clunky and people involved seem uninterested in actually serving justice within a reasonable time frame. Any improvement in accountability and performance would gain a vote from me. Speaking of voting, what do the people know about judges and justice from the bench perspective. I think they have a tendency to "vote" for judges based on party affiliation or name coolness factor (like Stoner, for example!). I don't know what to do in my current situation other than grin and bear it, but my case is an example of things working neither smoothly, effectively nor expeditiously. After this experience I'd pay more to have the higher courts hear the case -- if I had the money. Oh the conundrum.

ADVERTISEMENT