ILNews

Opinions Nov. 17, 2010

November 17, 2010
Keywords
Back to TopE-mailPrintBookmark and Share


7th Circuit Court of Appeals
United States of America v. Rosalio Cruz-Rea and Zoyla Garcia-Rea
09-3591, 10-1355
U.S. District Court, Southern District of Indiana, Evansville Division, Chief Judge Richard L. Young.
Criminal. Affirms convictions of and sentences of Cruz-Rea for conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute more than five kilograms of cocaine and possession with intent to distribute 500 grams or more of cocaine, and convictions of and sentences for Garcia-Rea for conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute more than five kilograms of cocaine. The government didn’t abuse its discretion in determining that the government laid sufficient foundation for an officer’s voice identification testimony under Fed. Evid. Rule 901(b)(5). Affirms in all other respects.

Indiana Supreme Court had posted no opinions at IL deadline.

Indiana Court of Appeals
Randy Horton v. State of Indiana
48A04-1001-CR-89
Criminal. Affirms convictions of and sentences for six counts of Class A felony child molesting and three counts of Class C felony child molesting. The trial court did not abuse its discretion in admitting a videotaped interview of a child-witness under the recorded recollection exception to the hearsay rule, and his sentence is not inappropriate considering the nature of the offenses and Horton’s character.

Darrian Bunch v. State of Indiana
49A04-1002-CR-120
Criminal. Reverses two of the three convictions of and sentences for criminal confinement against the same victim because they constituted only one distinct confinement and the convictions violate the Indiana Double Jeopardy clause. Remands with instructions that those two convictions and sentences be vacated. Affirms his other convictions and sentences for robbery, burglary, intimidation, criminal confinement pertaining to other victims, and carrying a handgun without a license.

R.A. v. State of Indiana
71A04-1005-JV-340
Juvenile. Reverses order that R.A. be committed to the Indiana Department of Correction given the facts of the case and the statutory policy favoring the least-harsh disposition. Remands with instructions for the juvenile court to vacate its dispositional decree and order his placement in an appropriate rehabilitative setting.

The Village Pines at the Pines of Greenwood Homeowners' Assn. Inc. v. The Pines of Greenwood Homeowners' Assn. Inc.
41A01-0912-CV-568
Civil. Reverses trial court ruling as it erred when it concluded that the controlling ordinances did not require the creation of a master homeowners’ association and for the shared use of amenities located in The Pines development. Remands for the trial court to order the parties to engage in mediation.

Gregory M. Small v. Frank A. Rogers

29A02-1001-PL-30
Civil plenary. Reverses summary judgment in favor of Rogers in his complaint for contribution against Small for the payments of interest under his guaranties that Rogers made to banks. The evidence shows that Rogers paid only a portion of the amounts due under the promissory notes and far less than his proportionate share of the debts owed to the banks, so the right to contribution does not apply in this case.

Marty McConnell v. State of Indiana (NFP)
18A02-1004-CR-400
Criminal. Affirms sentence following guilty plea to five counts of Class C felony robbery and one count of Class C felony possession of cocaine.

Anthony J. Woods v. State of Indiana (NFP)
49A04-1003-CR-158
Criminal. Affirms conviction of Class B felony possession of cocaine within 1,000 feet of a family housing complex.

Curtis E. Cash v. State of Indiana (NFP)
67A05-1005-CR-288
Criminal. Affirms convictions of and sentence for Class B felony attempted burglary, Class C felony attempted burglary, and being a habitual offender.

Kyle E. Beals v. State of Indiana (NFP)
49A02-1004-CR-453
Criminal. Affirms probation revocation and order Beals serve his previously suspended sentence.

Lisa Burress v. Brad Wells (NFP)
82A01-1003-DR-128
Domestic relation. Affirms modification of primary physical custody in favor of Wells and holding Burress in contempt.

Robert Burch, et al. v. Vern Penner (NFP)
85A04-1003-PL-169
Civil plenary. Affirms denial of the Burches’ motion for relief from judgment.

Tracy Trimble v. State of Indiana (NFP)
49A04-1003-CR-163
Criminal. Affirms convictions of Class D felony domestic battery and Class D felony strangulation. Remands with instructions to amend the abstract of judgment.

K.W. v. L.W. (NFP)
54A05-1003-DR-181
Domestic relation. Affirms order awarding L.W. primary physical custody of the parties’ minor child.

Michele Michaylo and Paul Michaylo v. Event Experts (NFP)
02A04-1007-SC-432
Small claims. Affirms judgment against Michaylo and in favor of Event Express for $5,800 in a dispute over a corporate sponsorship agreement.

Steve D. Eller v. State of Indiana (NFP)

14A05-0912-PC-690
Post conviction. Affirms denial of petition for post-conviction relief.

Hirman Jackson v. State of Indiana (NFP)
79A02-1001-CR-85
Criminal. Vacates conviction of and sentence for possession of a schedule I controlled substance as a Class D felony and affirms conviction of and sentence for dealing in a schedule I controlled substance as a Class B felony. Remands for a determination of Jackson’s ability to reimburse the county in part for the costs of his representation.

Jared Beeler v. State of Indiana (NFP)

02A05-1002-CR-153
Criminal. Affirms sentence following guilty plea to Class C felony child molesting, Class C felony vicarious sexual gratification, and Class A felony attempted child molesting.

Indiana Tax Court had posted no opinions at IL deadline.

The Indiana Supreme Court granted one transfer and denied 11 for the week ending Nov. 12.
 

ADVERTISEMENT

Sponsored by
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. It really doesn't matter what the law IS, if law enforcement refuses to take reports (or take them seriously), if courts refuse to allow unrepresented parties to speak (especially in Small Claims, which is supposedly "informal"). It doesn't matter what the law IS, if constituents are unable to make effective contact or receive any meaningful response from their representatives. Two of our pets were unnecessarily killed; court records reflect that I "abandoned" them. Not so; when I was denied one of them (and my possessions, which by court order I was supposed to be able to remove), I went directly to the court. And earlier, when I tried to have the DV PO extended (it expired while the subject was on probation for violating it), the court denied any extension. The result? Same problems, less than eight hours after expiration. Ironic that the county sheriff was charged (and later pleaded to) with intimidation, but none of his officers seemed interested or capable of taking such a report from a private citizen. When I learned from one officer what I needed to do, I forwarded audio and transcript of one occurrence and my call to law enforcement (before the statute of limitations expired) to the prosecutor's office. I didn't even receive an acknowledgement. Earlier, I'd gone in to the prosecutor's office and been told that the officer's (written) report didn't match what I said occurred. Since I had the audio, I can only say that I have very little faith in Indiana government or law enforcement.

  2. One can only wonder whether Mr. Kimmel was paid for his work by Mr. Burgh ... or whether that bill fell to the citizens of Indiana, many of whom cannot afford attorneys for important matters. It really doesn't take a judge(s) to know that "pavement" can be considered a deadly weapon. It only takes a brain and some education or thought. I'm glad to see the conviction was upheld although sorry to see that the asphalt could even be considered "an issue".

  3. In response to bryanjbrown: thank you for your comment. I am familiar with Paul Ogden (and applaud his assistance to Shirley Justice) and have read of Gary Welsh's (strange) death (and have visited his blog on many occasions). I am not familiar with you (yet). I lived in Kosciusko county, where the sheriff was just removed after pleading in what seems a very "sweetheart" deal. Unfortunately, something NEEDS to change since the attorneys won't (en masse) stand up for ethics (rather making a show to please the "rules" and apparently the judges). I read that many attorneys are underemployed. Seems wisdom would be to cull the herd and get rid of the rotting apples in practice and on the bench, for everyone's sake as well as justice. I'd like to file an attorney complaint, but I have little faith in anything (other than the most flagrant and obvious) resulting in action. My own belief is that if this was medicine, there'd be maimed and injured all over and the carnage caused by "the profession" would be difficult to hide. One can dream ... meanwhile, back to figuring out to file a pro se "motion to dismiss" as well as another court required paper that Indiana is so fond of providing NO resources for (unlike many other states, who don't automatically assume that citizens involved in the court process are scumbags) so that maybe I can get the family law attorney - whose work left me with no settlement, no possessions and resulted in the death of two pets (etc ad nauseum) - to stop abusing the proceedings supplemental and small claims rules and using it as a vehicle for harassment and apparently, amusement.

  4. Been on social security sense sept 2011 2massive strokes open heart surgery and serious ovarian cancer and a blood clot in my lung all in 14 months. Got a letter in may saying that i didn't qualify and it was in form like i just applied ,called social security she said it don't make sense and you are still geting a check in june and i did ,now i get a check from my part D asking for payment for july because there will be no money for my membership, call my prescription coverage part D and confirmed no check will be there.went to social security they didn't want to answer whats going on just said i should of never been on it .no one knows where this letter came from was California im in virginia and been here sense my strokes and vcu filed for my disability i was in the hospital when they did it .It's like it was a error . My ,mothers social security was being handled in that office in California my sister was dealing with it and it had my social security number because she died last year and this letter came out of the same office and it came at the same time i got the letter for my mother benefits for death and they had the same date of being typed just one was on the mail Saturday and one on Monday. . I think it's a mistake and it should been fixed instead there just getting rid of me .i never got a formal letter saying when i was being tsken off.

  5. Employers should not have racially discriminating mind set. It has huge impact on the society what the big players do or don't do in the industry. Background check is conducted just to verify whether information provided by the prospective employee is correct or not. It doesn't have any direct combination with the rejection of the employees. If there is rejection, there should be something effective and full-proof things on the table that may keep the company or the people associated with it in jeopardy.

ADVERTISEMENT