Opinions Nov. 29, 2011

November 29, 2011
Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

7th Circuit Court of Appeals had posted no Indiana opinions at IL deadline.

Indiana Supreme Court
David Hopper v. State of Indiana
Post conviction. Grants rehearing to address the role and necessity of advising someone of the risks of dealing with prosecutors without a lawyer. The post-conviction court was right that Hopper’s waiver of counsel was voluntary and intelligent. Finds Hopper’s contention that advisement language should be mandatory in all stages of all cases with all defendants is misplaced. Justice Rucker dissents with separate opinion, in which Justice Sullivan concurs.

Indiana Court of Appeals
Justin Woodhouse v. State of Indiana (NFP)
Criminal. Affirms convictions of Class B felony dealing in methamphetamine, Class D felony possession of a chemical reagent or precursor with intent to manufacture a controlled substance, Class D felony maintaining a common nuisance, Class A misdemeanor resisting law enforcement, Class B misdemeanor disorderly conduct, and four counts of Class C misdemeanor purchasing more than three grams of a precursor. Remands to clarify its earlier order to properly indicate the merger of counts I and II.

McCoy Tile v. Meyer Glass & Mirror, and Robert Fryer (NFP)
Small claims. Affirms judgment in favor of Fryer with respect to his claim that McCoy Tile improperly installed tile in Fryer’s shower.

Rodney Johnson v. State of Indiana (NFP)
Post conviction. Affirms denial of petition for post-conviction relief.

Matthew Totten v. Review Board of the Indiana Workforce Development and Great Lakes Granite (NFP)
Agency appeal. Affirms denial of employment benefits.

Nationwide Ins. Co., and Edward and Anne Mickel v. Paul Parmer, II, Rick Ramsey and Heather Sida
Civil tort. Affirms orders granting Parmer’s and Sida’s motions for leave to amend their affirmative defenses and the order denying the Mickels’ and Nationwide Insurance Co.’s motion to reconsider. The Mickels and Nationwide did not timely request certification of the Jan. 4 order and therefore waived their claims regarding the order on appeal. Sida properly objected to the trial court’s dismissal and preserved her right to add nonparty defendants.

Max Riley v. State of Indiana (NFP)
Criminal. Affirms conviction of Class D felony attempted theft.

Natalie A. Miller, Individually and as Administratrix of the Estate of Alexis J. Ritch, Daniel J. Ritch, et al. v. L. Barrett Bernard, M.D., the Bethany Circle of King's Daughters Hospital & Health, et al.
Civil plenary. Reverses in part summary judgment for defendants Morton Grove Pharmaceuticals and CVS Pharmacy. The trial court erred in excluding the testimony of Dr. Loeb; defendants were entitled to the statutory rebuttable presumption of no defect in the manufacture of Promethazine Syrup Plain, but whether the plaintiffs have rebutted this presumption remains a question of fact; and whether MGP’s production and CVS’s distribution of PSP caused Alexis Ritch’s death is also a question of fact. Concludes that the trial court did not err in denying the defendants’ motion to exclude other expert testimonies in favor of the plaintiffs. Affirms in part the allowance of the opinions of doctors Kenneth Kulig and George Nichols. Remands for further proceedings.

Darnell Daniels v. State of Indiana
Criminal. Affirms convictions of Class B felony robbery and Class C felony intimidation. The state only needed to present evidence from which the jury could infer that the victim was in fact put in fear. It’s not necessary for the victim to testify that he or she was actually put in fear. The variance in the charging information and the proof at trial is not fatal and there was sufficient evidence that Daniels “used” the gun while intimidating his victim.

Jose Rodriguez v. State of Indiana (NFP)
Criminal. Grants rehearing for the limited purpose of clarifying that the failure to instruct issue is waived. Affirms original opinion in all respects.

State of Indiana v. Jaime Bonilla
Post conviction. Reverses grant of petition for post-conviction relief. Bonilla did not allege special circumstances or objective facts demonstrating his decision to plead guilty was driven by his counsel’s erroneous advice.

Steve Barnett v. State of Indiana (NFP)
Criminal. Affirms revocation of probation.

In Re: The Marriage of Steve Metzger and Peggy Metzger (NFP)
Domestic relation. Affirms order that father pay child support and a portion of expenses incurred for the post-secondary education of two of his children.

Sean Holtsclaw v. State of Indiana (NFP)
Criminal. Affirms conviction of Class B felony burglary.

Martize Sevion v. State of Indiana (NFP)
Criminal. Affirms denial of Sevion’s motion to correct erroneous sentence. Dismisses Sevion’s claims with respect to the merits of his conviction due to his untimely appeal.

Erica Ball v. State of Indiana (NFP)
Criminal. Affirms conviction of Class B misdemeanor disorderly conduct.

Joseph Simmons v. State of Indiana (NFP)
Post conviction. Affirms denial of petition for post-conviction relief.

K.S. v. State of Indiana (NFP)
Juvenile. Affirms disposition order following adjudication as a delinquent for committing what would be theft if committed by an adult.

John V. Loudermilk, Continental American Ins. Co., Geneva P. Loudermilk, et al. v. Jet Credit Union n/k/a Credit Union 1 (NFP)
Civil plenary. Affirms grant of partial summary judgment in favor of Jet Credit regarding co-defendants’ counterclaim for common law conversion.

A.W.S. v. C.S.-R. (NFP)
Domestic relation. Affirms denial of father’s petition to remove restrictions on parenting time.

Kevin Scaife v. State of Indiana (NFP)
Criminal. Affirms conviction of Class D felony theft.

D.L., b/n/f G.L. v. Pioneer School Corporation, Pioneer Board of School Trustees and Larry John
Miscellaneous. Affirms denial of D.L.’s request to overturn his expulsion from Pioneer High School. The trial court’s decision was not contrary to law.

Indiana Tax Court had posted no opinions at IL deadline.

The Indiana Supreme Court denied transfer to one case for the week ending Nov. 23.


Post a comment to this story

We reserve the right to remove any post that we feel is obscene, profane, vulgar, racist, sexually explicit, abusive, or hateful.
You are legally responsible for what you post and your anonymity is not guaranteed.
Posts that insult, defame, threaten, harass or abuse other readers or people mentioned in Indiana Lawyer editorial content are also subject to removal. Please respect the privacy of individuals and refrain from posting personal information.
No solicitations, spamming or advertisements are allowed. Readers may post links to other informational websites that are relevant to the topic at hand, but please do not link to objectionable material.
We may remove messages that are unrelated to the topic, encourage illegal activity, use all capital letters or are unreadable.

Messages that are flagged by readers as objectionable will be reviewed and may or may not be removed. Please do not flag a post simply because you disagree with it.

Sponsored by
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. So men who think they are girls at heart can use the lady's potty? Usually the longer line is for the women's loo, so, the ladies may be the ones to experience temporary gender dysphoria, who knows? Is it ok to joke about his or is that hate? I may need a brainwash too, hey! I may just object to my own comment, later, if I get myself properly "oriented"

  2. Heritage, what Heritage? The New Age is dawning .... an experiment in disordered liberty and social fragmentation is upon us .... "Carmel City Council approved a human rights ordinance with a 4-3 vote Monday night after hearing about two hours of divided public testimony. The ordinance bans discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation or gender identity, among other traits. Council members Rick Sharp, Carol Schleif, Sue Finkam and Ron Carter voted in favor of it. The three council members opposing it—Luci Snyder, Kevin Rider and Eric Seidensticker—all said they were against any form of discrimination, but had issues with the wording and possible unintended consequences of the proposal." Kardashian is the new Black.

  3. Can anyone please tell me if anyone is appealing the law that certain sex offenders can't be on school property. How is somebody supposed to watch their children's sports games or graduations, this law needs revised such as sex offenders that are on school property must have another non-offender adult with them at all times while on school property. That they must go to the event and then leave directly afterwards. This is only going to hurt the children of the offenders and the father/ son mother/ daughter vice versa relationship. Please email me and let me know if there is a group that is appealing this for reasons other than voting and religion. Thank you.

  4. Should any attorney who argues against the abortion industry, or presents arguments based upon the Founders' concept of Higher Law, (like that marriage precedes the State) have to check in with the Judges and Lawyers Assistance Program for a mandatory mental health review? Some think so ... that could certainly cut down on cases such as this "cluttering up" the SCOTUS docket ... use JLAP to deny all uber conservative attorneys licenses and uber conservative representation will tank. If the ends justify the means, why not?

  5. Tell them sherry Mckay told you to call, they're trying to get all the people that have been wronged and held unlawfully to sign up on this class action lawsuit.