ILNews

Opinions May 20, 2013

May 20, 2013
Keywords
Back to TopE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

The following opinions were posted after IL deadline Friday:
Indiana Tax Court
Board of Commissioners of the County of Jasper, Indiana v. Micah G. Vincent, Commissioner, Indiana Department of Local Government Finance
49T10-1011-TA-59
Tax. Reverses and remands the DLGF’s denial of a request to establish a cumulative building fund and levy for a county hospital, holding that the decision was arbitrary and capricious. The court rejected DLGF’s argument that the statute’s language that a fund and levy may be established “for not more than 12 years” did not preclude re-establishment of a fund that expired.

Indiana Supreme Court
In the Matter of: Arthur J. Usher, IV
49S00-1105-DI-298
Discipline. In a per curiam decision, justices suspend Usher for three years for violating several Indiana Professional Conduct Rules stemming from an incident where he had his paralegal email more than 50 attorneys a video clip purporting to depict a former summer intern nude in a film.

Monday’s opinions
7th Circuit Court of Appeals
United States of America v. John W. Bloch, III
12-2784
U.S. District Court, Northern District of Indiana, South Bend Division, Judge Robert L. Miller Jr.
Criminal. Affirms in part, reverses in part and remands. The court affirmed a conviction of firearm possession by a felon, but found error in convictions of two counts under 18 U.S.C. Section 922 because the possession of two firearms arose from the same incident. Ordered the District Court for the Northern District of Indiana to merge the convictions and resentence Bloch on a single count.

United States of America v. Jamel H. Brown
12-3413
U.S. District Court, Southern District of Indiana, Indianapolis Division, Judge Sarah Evans Barker.
Criminal. Affirms 400-month sentence on a conviction of unlawful possession of a firearm, holding that the sentence in the District Court for the Southern District of Indiana was rendered after an acceptable consideration of disputed matter in the presentence report.

Indiana Court of Appeals
David F. Wood v. State of Indiana
49A02-1207-CR-615
Criminal. Reverses convictions and aggregate 11-year sentence for Class B felony possession of a firearm by a serious violent felon and five counts of Class D felony possession of child pornography. The court vacated the SVF conviction, finding error because a plea was accepted after a jury returned a verdict form marked “No” regarding whether Wood knowingly or intentionally possessed a firearm. The court also found that five, consecutive one-year sentences for Class D felony convictions violates a cap of four years in I.C. 35-50-1-2. Remands for resentencing.

Roger Jay Piatek, M.D., and The Piatek Institute v. Shairon Beale
49A04-1209-CT-463
Civil tort. Affirms trial court’s denial of Piatek’s motion for mistrial. Found that a reference by Beale’s counsel during the trial to Piatek pleading the Fifth Amendment was generic and did not subject the doctor to greater prejudice. Also, the court held the trial court’s admonition to the jury was sufficient to cure any prejudice from the reference to pleading the Fifth.  

Jeffery S. Williams v. State of Indiana (NFP)
59A05-1209-CR-487
Criminal. Affirms in part and reverses in part Williams’ 15-year sentence for pleading guilty to one count of possession of methamphetamine as a Class B felony. Remands for the trial court to decide whether to grant Williams credit for his pre-trial release on bond. Rules Williams failed to show the trial court abused its discretion when it did not enter a written sentencing statement with an explanation for the sentence imposed. Expresses no opinion on Williams’ claim the trial court abused its discretion by failing to recognize mitigating factors. Finds that Williams failed to meet his burden of establishing that his sentence was inappropriate.

Gina West v. Midland Credit Management, Inc. (NFP)
03A01-1208-CC-395
Civil collection. Reverses the denial of motion to set aside a default judgment. Rules West had shown prima facie error in the denial of her motion as her motion did not have to be brought within a year and she proved service was improper.  

Kevin E. Scheumann and Tina Reynolds v. Danny Clark, Jason L. Little, Recovery One LLC, Renovo Services LLC, Renaissance Recovery Solutions LLC, Citifinancial Auto Credit Inc., et al. (NFP)
02A03-1210-CT-448
Civil tort. Affirms trial court entering final judgment in favor of Renovo Services LLC on its summary judgment ruling. Found the trial court did not err in finding that Renovo was not liable for any of the plaintiffs’ claims or any wrongdoing of the independent contractors under a theory of respondeat superior.  

Creditmax, Inc. v. Steve D. Jones (NFP)
03A05-1211-CC-598
Civil collection. Affirms trial court’s order that entered a limited garnishment of Jones’ wages in the amount of $20 per week in favor of Creditmax.

George Johnson v. State of Indiana (NFP)
49A02-1207-CR-616
Criminal. Affirms Johnson’s 20-year sentence imposed following his convictions of Class B felony criminal confinement and Class A misdemeanor battery. Ruled in light of Johnson’s character and offense, the sentence is not inappropriate.

The Indiana Supreme Court and Tax Court posted no decisions by IL deadline.

 

ADVERTISEMENT

Sponsored by
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. No second amendment, pro life, pro traditional marriage, reagan or trump tshirts will be sold either. And you cannot draw Mohammed even in your own notebook. And you must wear a helmet at all times while at the fair. And no lawyer jokes can be told except in the designated protest area. And next year no crucifixes, since they are uber offensive to all but Catholics. Have a nice bland day here in the Lego movie. Remember ... Everything is awesome comrades.

  2. Thank you for this post . I just bought a LG External DVD It came with Cyber pwr 2 go . It would not play on Lenovo Idea pad w/8.1 . Your recommended free VLC worked great .

  3. All these sites putting up all the crap they do making Brent Look like A Monster like he's not a good person . First off th fight actually started not because of Brent but because of one of his friends then when the fight popped off his friend ran like a coward which left Brent to fend for himself .It IS NOT a crime to defend yourself 3 of them and 1 of him . just so happened he was a better fighter. I'm Brent s wife so I know him personally and up close . He's a very caring kind loving man . He's not abusive in any way . He is a loving father and really shouldn't be where he is not for self defense . Now because of one of his stupid friends trying to show off and turning out to be nothing but a coward and leaving Brent to be jumped by 3 men not only is Brent suffering but Me his wife , his kids abd step kidshis mom and brother his family is left to live without him abd suffering in more ways then one . that man was and still is my smile ....he's the one real thing I've ever had in my life .....f@#@ You Lafayette court system . Learn to do your jobs right he maybe should have gotten that year for misdemeanor battery but that s it . not one person can stand to me and tell me if u we're in a fight facing 3 men and u just by yourself u wouldn't fight back that you wouldn't do everything u could to walk away to ur family ur kids That's what Brent is guilty of trying to defend himself against 3 men he wanted to go home tohisfamily worse then they did he just happened to be a better fighter and he got the best of th others . what would you do ? Stand there lay there and be stomped and beaten or would u give it everything u got and fight back ? I'd of done the same only I'm so smallid of probably shot or stabbed or picked up something to use as a weapon . if it was me or them I'd do everything I could to make sure I was going to live that I would make it hone to see my kids and husband . I Love You Brent Anthony Forever & Always .....Soul 1 baby

  4. Good points, although this man did have a dog in the legal fight as that it was his mother on trial ... and he a dependent. As for parking spaces, handicap spots for pregnant women sure makes sense to me ... er, I mean pregnant men or women. (Please, I meant to include pregnant men the first time, not Room 101 again, please not Room 101 again. I love BB)

  5. I have no doubt that the ADA and related laws provide that many disabilities must be addressed. The question, however, is "by whom?" Many people get dealt bad cards by life. Some are deaf. Some are blind. Some are crippled. Why is it the business of the state to "collectivize" these problems and to force those who are NOT so afflicted to pay for those who are? The fact that this litigant was a mere spectator and not a party is chilling. What happens when somebody who speaks only East Bazurkistanish wants a translator so that he can "understand" the proceedings in a case in which he has NO interest? Do I and all other taxpayers have to cough up? It would seem so. ADA should be amended to provide a simple rule: "Your handicap, YOUR problem". This would apply particularly to handicapped parking spaces, where it seems that if the "handicap" is an ingrown toenail, the government comes rushing in to assist the poor downtrodden victim. I would grant wounded vets (IED victims come to mind in particular) a pass on this.. but others? Nope.

ADVERTISEMENT