ILNews

Opinions May 6, 2011

May 6, 2011
Keywords
Back to TopE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

The following opinion was posted after IL deadline Thursday:
Indiana Supreme Court
Joshua Konopasek v. State of Indiana
25S03-1012-CR-669
Criminal. Reaffirms the Fletcher limitation on the judicial-temperance presumption. Summarily affirms the Indiana Court of Appeals decision finding sufficient evidence to support Konopasek’s conviction and to disprove his self-defense claim. Concludes the trial court properly admitted the evidence in question and affirms his conviction of and sentence for Class C felony battery causing serious bodily injury.  

Today’s opinions
7th Circuit Court of Appeals
United States of America v. Jermel C. Thomas
10-3566
U.S. District Court, Northern District of Indiana, South Bend Division,
Judge Robert L. Miller, Jr.
Criminal. Dismisses appeal, stating the District Court did not err in enforcing a plea agreement wherein Jermel Thomas had waived his right to appeal his sentence and conviction.

Indiana Supreme Court had posted no opinions at IL deadline.

Indiana Court of Appeals
John Witt, Hydrotech Corp. and Mark Shere v. Jay Petroleum, Inc. and Jack R. James
38A02-0912-CV-1290
Civil. Reverses trial court’s award of attorney fees to Jay Petroleum and Jack James, ruling the trial court erred when it determined the appellants were in contempt of court.  

Gayle D. Edelen v. State of Indiana
26A01-1007-CR-362
Criminal. Affirms convictions of Class D felonies of perjury and official misconduct against Gayle D. Edelen, a caseworker for the Indiana Department of Child Services. States that the transcript of the closed juvenile procedure hearing in which Edelen perjured herself was admissible in Edelen’s perjury trial.

R.L. Turner Corporation v. Town of Brownsburg
32A01-1008-PL-373
Civil plenary. Affirms trial court’s order awarding attorney fees to the Town of Brownsburg, ruling that R.L. Turner Corporation’s lawsuit was frivolous, unreasonable, and groundless.

Dwayne Eversley v. State of Indiana (NFP)
49A04-1008-CR-497
Criminal. Affirms convictions of invasion of privacy, as both a Class D felony and a Class A misdemeanor, and resisting law enforcement, as both a Class D felony and a Class A misdemeanor.

A.M. v. Review Board (NFP)
93A02-1008-EX-887
Civil. Affirms Indiana Department of Workforce Development Review Board’s denial of unemployment compensation benefits.

Steven Gray v. State of Indiana (NFP)
15A05-1010-CR-690
Criminal. Affirms 50-year sentence for Class A felony child molesting. Reverses convictions of Class B felonies rape and incest on double jeopardy grounds, and remands with instructions to vacate.

Tiffany L. Otten v. State of Indiana (NFP)
02A03-1009-CR-538
Criminal. Affirms conviction of Class B felony neglect of a dependant.

Willie J. Herman v. State of Indiana (NFP)
02A03-1010-CR-560
Criminal. Affirms conviction of Class D felony battery.

Jerry Kohlhouse v. Black's Excavation (NFP)
42A01-1010-SC-594
Small claim. Affirms trial court’s judgment for Black’s Excavation and its dismissal of Jerry Kohlhouse’s counter-claim.

A.F. & R.B. v. I.D.C.S. (NFP)
20A03-1010-JC-521
Juvenile CHINS. Affirms trial court’s adjudication of children as children in need of services.

Ronald Cox v. State of Indiana (NFP)
49A05-1009-CR-536
Criminal. Affirms convictions of two counts of Class C felony child molesting and one count Class D felony child solicitation.

Jermarcus L. Grandberry v. State of Indiana (NFP)
02A05-1010-CR-643
Criminal. Affirms conviction of and sentence for Class B felony burglary.

Jamie L. Vida v. State of Indiana (NFP)
20A03-1012-PL-664
Civil plenary. Reverses denial of verified petition for removal from the Indiana Sex Offender Registry. Remands with instructions to grant petition.

Tyler Sturdivant v. State of Indiana (NFP)
49A02-1008-CR-934
Criminal. Affirms convictions of Class C felony battery and Class A misdemeanor battery.

Marlon D. Taylor v. State of Indiana (NFP)
49A05-1010-CR-597
Criminal. Affirms trial court’s finding that Taylor violated his community corrections placement and probation.

Indiana Tax Court had posted no opinions at IL deadline.
 

ADVERTISEMENT

Sponsored by
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. He TIL team,please zap this comment too since it was merely marking a scammer and not reflecting on the story. Thanks, happy Monday, keep up the fine work.

  2. You just need my social security number sent to your Gmail account to process then loan, right? Beware scammers indeed.

  3. The appellate court just said doctors can be sued for reporting child abuse. The most dangerous form of child abuse with the highest mortality rate of any form of child abuse (between 6% and 9% according to the below listed studies). Now doctors will be far less likely to report this form of dangerous child abuse in Indiana. If you want to know what this is, google the names Lacey Spears, Julie Conley (and look at what happened when uninformed judges returned that child against medical advice), Hope Ybarra, and Dixie Blanchard. Here is some really good reporting on what this allegation was: http://media.star-telegram.com/Munchausenmoms/ Here are the two research papers: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/0145213487900810 http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0145213403000309 25% of sibling are dead in that second study. 25%!!! Unbelievable ruling. Chilling. Wrong.

  4. Mr. Levin says that the BMV engaged in misconduct--that the BMV (or, rather, someone in the BMV) knew Indiana motorists were being overcharged fees but did nothing to correct the situation. Such misconduct, whether engaged in by one individual or by a group, is called theft (defined as knowingly or intentionally exerting unauthorized control over the property of another person with the intent to deprive the other person of the property's value or use). Theft is a crime in Indiana (as it still is in most of the civilized world). One wonders, then, why there have been no criminal prosecutions of BMV officials for this theft? Government misconduct doesn't occur in a vacuum. An individual who works for or oversees a government agency is responsible for the misconduct. In this instance, somebody (or somebodies) with the BMV, at some time, knew Indiana motorists were being overcharged. What's more, this person (or these people), even after having the error of their ways pointed out to them, did nothing to fix the problem. Instead, the overcharges continued. Thus, the taxpayers of Indiana are also on the hook for the millions of dollars in attorneys fees (for both sides; the BMV didn't see fit to avail itself of the services of a lawyer employed by the state government) that had to be spent in order to finally convince the BMV that stealing money from Indiana motorists was a bad thing. Given that the BMV official(s) responsible for this crime continued their misconduct, covered it up, and never did anything until the agency reached an agreeable settlement, it seems the statute of limitations for prosecuting these folks has not yet run. I hope our Attorney General is paying attention to this fiasco and is seriously considering prosecution. Indiana, the state that works . . . for thieves.

  5. I'm glad that attorney Carl Hayes, who represented the BMV in this case, is able to say that his client "is pleased to have resolved the issue". Everyone makes mistakes, even bureaucratic behemoths like Indiana's BMV. So to some extent we need to be forgiving of such mistakes. But when those mistakes are going to cost Indiana taxpayers millions of dollars to rectify (because neither plaintiff's counsel nor Mr. Hayes gave freely of their services, and the BMV, being a state-funded agency, relies on taxpayer dollars to pay these attorneys their fees), the agency doesn't have a right to feel "pleased to have resolved the issue". One is left wondering why the BMV feels so pleased with this resolution? The magnitude of the agency's overcharges might suggest to some that, perhaps, these errors were more than mere oversight. Could this be why the agency is so "pleased" with this resolution? Will Indiana motorists ever be assured that the culture of incompetence (if not worse) that the BMV seems to have fostered is no longer the status quo? Or will even more "overcharges" and lawsuits result? It's fairly obvious who is really "pleased to have resolved the issue", and it's not Indiana's taxpayers who are on the hook for the legal fees generated in these cases.

ADVERTISEMENT