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. I gave tempparry guardship to a friend of my granddaughter in 2012. I went to prison. I had custody. My daughter went to prison to. We are out. My daughter gave me custody but can get her back. She was not order to give me custody . but now we want granddaughter back from friend. She's 14 now. What rights do we have

  2. This sure is not what most who value good governance consider the Rule of Law to entail: "In a letter dated March 2, which Brizzi forwarded to IBJ, the commission dismissed the grievance “on grounds that there is not reasonable cause to believe that you are guilty of misconduct.”" Yet two month later reasonable cause does exist? (Or is the commission forging ahead, the need for reasonable belief be damned? -- A seeming violation of the Rules of Profession Ethics on the part of the commission) Could the rule of law theory cause one to believe that an explanation is in order? Could it be that Hoosier attorneys live under Imperial Law (which is also a t-word that rhymes with infamy) in which the Platonic guardians can do no wrong and never owe the plebeian class any explanation for their powerful actions. (Might makes it right?) Could this be a case of politics directing the commission, as celebrated IU Mauer Professor (the late) Patrick Baude warned was happening 20 years ago in his controversial (whisteblowing) ethics lecture on a quite similar topic: http://www.repository.law.indiana.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1498&context=ilj

  3. I have a case presently pending cert review before the SCOTUS that reveals just how Indiana regulates the bar. I have been denied licensure for life for holding the wrong views and questioning the grand inquisitors as to their duties as to state and federal constitutional due process. True story: https://www.scribd.com/doc/299040839/2016Petitionforcert-to-SCOTUS Shorter, Amici brief serving to frame issue as misuse of govt licensure: https://www.scribd.com/doc/312841269/Thomas-More-Society-Amicus-Brown-v-Ind-Bd-of-Law-Examiners

  4. Here's an idea...how about we MORE heavily regulate the law schools to reduce the surplus of graduates, driving starting salaries up for those new grads, so that we can all pay our insane amount of student loans off in a reasonable amount of time and then be able to afford to do pro bono & low-fee work? I've got friends in other industries, radiology for example, and their schools accept a very limited number of students so there will never be a glut of new grads and everyone's pay stays high. For example, my radiologist friend's school accepted just six new students per year.

  5. I totally agree with John Smith.

ADVERTISEMENT