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
2015 Distinguished Barrister &
Up and Coming Lawyer Reception

Tuesday, May 5, 2015 • 4:30 - 7:00 pm
Learn More


ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. The $320,000 is the amount the school spent in litigating two lawsuits: One to release the report involving John Trimble (as noted in the story above) and one defending the discrimination lawsuit. The story above does not mention the amount spent to defend the discrimination suit, that's why the numbers don't match. Thanks for reading.

  2. $160k? Yesterday the figure was $320k. Which is it Indiana Lawyer. And even more interesting, which well connected law firm got the (I am guessing) $320k, six time was the fired chancellor received. LOL. (From yesterday's story, which I guess we were expected to forget overnight ... "According to records obtained by the Journal & Courier, Purdue spent $161,812, beginning in July 2012, in a state open records lawsuit and $168,312, beginning in April 2013, for defense in a federal lawsuit. Much of those fees were spent battling court orders to release an independent investigation by attorney John Trimble that found Purdue could have handled the forced retirement better")

  3. The numbers are harsh; 66 - 24 in the House, 40 - 10 in the Senate. And it is an idea pushed by the Democrats. Dead end? Ummm not necessarily. Just need to go big rather than go home. Nuclear option. Give it to the federal courts, the federal courts will ram this down our throats. Like that other invented right of the modern age, feticide. Rights too precious to be held up by 2000 years of civilization hang in the balance. Onward!

  4. I'm currently seeing someone who has a charge of child pornography possession, he didn't know he had it because it was attached to a music video file he downloaded when he was 19/20 yrs old and fought it for years until he couldn't handle it and plead guilty of possession. He's been convicted in Illinois and now lives in Indiana. Wouldn't it be better to give them a chance to prove to the community and their families that they pose no threat? He's so young and now because he was being a kid and downloaded music at a younger age, he has to pay for it the rest of his life? It's unfair, he can't live a normal life, and has to live in fear of what people can say and do to him because of something that happened 10 years ago? No one deserves that, and no one deserves to be labeled for one mistake, he got labeled even though there was no intent to obtain and use the said content. It makes me so sad to see someone I love go through this and it makes me holds me back a lot because I don't know how people around me will accept him...second chances should be given to those under the age of 21 at least so they can be given a chance to live a normal life as a productive member of society.

  5. It's just an ill considered remark. The Sup Ct is inherently political, as it is a core part of government, and Marbury V Madison guaranteed that it would become ever more so Supremely thus. So her remark is meaningless and she just should have not made it.... what she could have said is that Congress is a bunch of lazys and cowards who wont do their jobs so the hard work of making laws clear, oftentimes stops with the Sups sorting things out that could have been resolved by more competent legislation. That would have been a more worthwhile remark and maybe would have had some relevance to what voters do, since voters cant affect who gets appointed to the supremely un-democratic art III courts.

ADVERTISEMENT