ILNews

Opinions Nov. 29, 2011

November 29, 2011
Keywords
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
13S01-1007-PC-399
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)
12A02-1012-CR-1322
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)
46A03-1102-SC-102
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)
71A03-1103-PC-97
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)
93A02-1102-EX-209
Agency appeal. Affirms denial of employment benefits.

Nationwide Ins. Co., and Edward and Anne Mickel v. Paul Parmer, II, Rick Ramsey and Heather Sida
41A01-1008-CT-377
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)
49A05-1105-CR-233
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.
39A05-1009-PL-546
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
20A03-1104-CR-165
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)
49A05-1006-CR-410
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
49A02-1102-PC-144
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)
87A01-1008-CR-397
Criminal. Affirms revocation of probation.

In Re: The Marriage of Steve Metzger and Peggy Metzger (NFP)
43A03-1101-DR-18
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)
71A04-1103-CR-118
Criminal. Affirms conviction of Class B felony burglary.

Martize Sevion v. State of Indiana (NFP)
18A05-1102-CR-125
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)
49A05-1103-CR-132
Criminal. Affirms conviction of Class B misdemeanor disorderly conduct.

Joseph Simmons v. State of Indiana (NFP)
40A01-1104-PC-186
Post conviction. Affirms denial of petition for post-conviction relief.

K.S. v. State of Indiana (NFP)
71A03-1105-JV-252
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)
49A02-1006-PL-665
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)
29A04-1102-DR-142
Domestic relation. Affirms denial of father’s petition to remove restrictions on parenting time.

Kevin Scaife v. State of Indiana (NFP)
49A02-1102-CR-172
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
09A02-1103-MI-271
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.
 

ADVERTISEMENT

Post a comment to this story

COMMENTS POLICY
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

facebook - twitter on Facebook & Twitter

Indiana State Bar Association

Indianapolis Bar Association

Evansville Bar Association

Allen County Bar Association

Indiana Lawyer on Facebook

facebook
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. It appears the police and prosecutors are allowed to change the rules halfway through the game to suit themselves. I am surprised that the congress has not yet eliminated the right to a trial in cases involving any type of forensic evidence. That would suit their foolish law and order police state views. I say we eliminate the statute of limitations for crimes committed by members of congress and other government employees. Of course they would never do that. They are all corrupt cowards!!!

  2. Poor Judge Brown probably thought that by slavishly serving the godz of the age her violations of 18th century concepts like due process and the rule of law would be overlooked. Mayhaps she was merely a Judge ahead of her time?

  3. in a lawyer discipline case Judge Brown, now removed, was presiding over a hearing about a lawyer accused of the supposedly heinous ethical violation of saying the words "Illegal immigrant." (IN re Barker) http://www.in.gov/judiciary/files/order-discipline-2013-55S00-1008-DI-429.pdf .... I wonder if when we compare the egregious violations of due process by Judge Brown, to her chiding of another lawyer for politically incorrectness, if there are any conclusions to be drawn about what kind of person, what kind of judge, what kind of apparatchik, is busy implementing the agenda of political correctness and making off-limits legit advocacy about an adverse party in a suit whose illegal alien status is relevant? I am just asking the question, the reader can make own conclsuion. Oh wait-- did I use the wrong adjective-- let me rephrase that, um undocumented alien?

  4. of course the bigger questions of whether or not the people want to pay for ANY bussing is off limits, due to the Supreme Court protecting the people from DEMOCRACY. Several decades hence from desegregation and bussing plans and we STILL need to be taking all this taxpayer money to combat mostly-imagined "discrimination" in the most obviously failed social program of the postwar period.

  5. You can put your photos anywhere you like... When someone steals it they know it doesn't belong to them. And, a man getting a divorce is automatically not a nice guy...? That's ridiculous. Since when is need of money a conflict of interest? That would mean that no one should have a job unless they are already financially solvent without a job... A photographer is also under no obligation to use a watermark (again, people know when a photo doesn't belong to them) or provide contact information. Hey, he didn't make it easy for me to pay him so I'll just take it! Well heck, might as well walk out of the grocery store with a cart full of food because the lines are too long and you don't find that convenient. "Only in Indiana." Oh, now you're passing judgement on an entire state... What state do you live in? I need to characterize everyone in your state as ignorant and opinionated. And the final bit of ignorance; assuming a photo anyone would want is lucky and then how much does your camera have to cost to make it a good photo, in your obviously relevant opinion?

ADVERTISEMENT