Opinions March 21, 2013

March 21, 2013
Back to TopE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

Indiana Supreme Court
Anthony D. Dye v. State of Indiana
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
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
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
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.
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)
Post conviction. Affirms denial of petition for post-conviction relief.

Arturo Fuentes v. State of Indiana (NFP)
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)
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.



Sponsored by
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. I think the cops are doing a great job locking up criminals. The Murder rates in the inner cities are skyrocketing and you think that too any people are being incarcerated. Maybe we need to lock up more of them. We have the ACLU, BLM, NAACP, Civil right Division of the DOJ, the innocent Project etc. We have court system with an appeal process that can go on for years, with attorneys supplied by the government. I'm confused as to how that translates into the idea that the defendants are not being represented properly. Maybe the attorneys need to do more Pro-Bono work

  2. We do not have 10% of our population (which would mean about 32 million) incarcerated. It's closer to 2%.

  3. If a class action suit or other manner of retribution is possible, count me in. I have email and voicemail from the man. He colluded with opposing counsel, I am certain. My case was damaged so severely it nearly lost me everything and I am still paying dearly.

  4. There's probably a lot of blame that can be cast around for Indiana Tech's abysmal bar passage rate this last February. The folks who decided that Indiana, a state with roughly 16,000 to 18,000 attorneys, needs a fifth law school need to question the motives that drove their support of this project. Others, who have been "strong supporters" of the law school, should likewise ask themselves why they believe this institution should be supported. Is it because it fills some real need in the state? Or is it, instead, nothing more than a resume builder for those who teach there part-time? And others who make excuses for the students' poor performance, especially those who offer nothing more than conspiracy theories to back up their claims--who are they helping? What evidence do they have to support their posturing? Ultimately, though, like most everything in life, whether one succeeds or fails is entirely within one's own hands. At least one student from Indiana Tech proved this when he/she took and passed the February bar. A second Indiana Tech student proved this when they took the bar in another state and passed. As for the remaining 9 who took the bar and didn't pass (apparently, one of the students successfully appealed his/her original score), it's now up to them (and nobody else) to ensure that they pass on their second attempt. These folks should feel no shame; many currently successful practicing attorneys failed the bar exam on their first try. These same attorneys picked themselves up, dusted themselves off, and got back to the rigorous study needed to ensure they would pass on their second go 'round. This is what the Indiana Tech students who didn't pass the first time need to do. Of course, none of this answers such questions as whether Indiana Tech should be accredited by the ABA, whether the school should keep its doors open, or, most importantly, whether it should have even opened its doors in the first place. Those who promoted the idea of a fifth law school in Indiana need to do a lot of soul-searching regarding their decisions. These same people should never be allowed, again, to have a say about the future of legal education in this state or anywhere else. Indiana already has four law schools. That's probably one more than it really needs. But it's more than enough.

  5. This man Steve Hubbard goes on any online post or forum he can find and tries to push his company. He said court reporters would be obsolete a few years ago, yet here we are. How does he have time to search out every single post about court reporters and even spy in private court reporting forums if his company is so successful???? Dude, get a life. And back to what this post was about, I agree that some national firms cause a huge problem.