ILNews

Opinions Nov. 5, 2013

November 5, 2013
Keywords
Back to TopE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

Indiana Supreme Court
Jason Wilson v. Kelly (Wilson) Myers
71S03-1305-DR-399
Domestic relation. Reverses modification of custody. Finds an abuse of discretion in the way this modification was carried out and ordered as it never mentioned whether the modification was in the best interest of the children or noted any substantial change in any of the factors enumerated in I.C. 31-17-2-8. Orders an evidentiary hearing and inquiry into in-camera interviews. Since the two children have already been pulled from their Indiana school system and are attending school in Michigan, this status quo should continue until further order of the court as to minimize further disruption to the kids.

Indiana Court of Appeals
Heather Herren v. Jerry Dishman
18A04-1304-SC-162
Small claims. Affirms an order of replevin returning custody of a dog to Jerry Dishman, after Heather Herren obtained an out-of-state protective order granting her custody and control of any animal owned, possessed, kept or held as a pet by either party. The small claims court erred in refusing to accord full faith and credit to the North Carolina protective order, but because Herren neither owned nor possessed the dog at the time the protective order was issued, she was not entitled to custody.

Andrew Wann v. State of Indiana
32A01-1303-CR-123
Criminal. Affirms order requiring Andrew Wann to serve 90 days of a suspended 365-day sentence for conviction of Class A misdemeanor possession of marijuana after a probationary urinalysis tested positive. The panel rejected Wann’s arguments that the urinalysis report was admitted in violation of his due process rights and that the court imposed a sentence that contravened statutory authority because time served or credited in jail or on probation exceeded 365 days.

Ritchie Hodges v. State of Indiana
06A01-1210-CR-466
Criminal. Reverses trial court order dismissing a claim for post-conviction relief from the revocation of a conditional release to placement in community corrections. The court held that a claim of ineffective assistance of counsel at a hearing to revoke placement is a claim that conditional release was unlawfully revoked, and therefore subject to a claim under Post-Conviction Rule 1(1)(a)(5).

State of Indiana v. William Gilbert
49A05-1303-CR-140
Criminal. Reverses suppression of evidence in a drunken-driving case in which a motorist was taken to a roll-call station where a breath test was administered. Police had probable cause to seize Gilbert after he allegedly ran a stop sign and police smelled alcohol and observed him stumble as he exited his vehicle. His rights under the Fourth Amendment therefore were not violated, the panel ruled.

In the Matter of the Termination of the Parent-Child Relationship of: S.L. & D.L. (Minor Children) and K.M., (Mother) & D.L.,(Father) v, The Indiana Department of Child Services
85A02-1304-JT-308
Termination of parental rights. Affirms trial court termination order for mother and father, concluding there is clear and convincing evidence to support the trial court’s findings and the court’s ultimate determination that there is a reasonable probability that the conditions that resulted in the children’s removal or the reasons for placement outside the home will not be remedied.

D.B., et al., v. Review Board of the Indiana Department of Workforce Development, Department of Workforce Development, and Anderson Transit System, Inc.
93A02-1301-EX-71
Civil. Affirms review board’s denial of school bus drivers’ application for unemployment compensation. Rules the board did not interpret the vacation provisions of Indiana Code Section 22-4-3-5, enacted in 2011 and 2012, too broadly. Presumes since the Legislature has held that mandatory vacation or shutdown period does not entitle employees to unemployment compensation, General Assembly did not  intend to change the common law beyond what its enactments and fair implications allow.  

Anthony E. Boyd v. WHTIV, Inc. and Walter Tarr, IV
49A05-1303-PL-107
Civil plenary. Reverses both the trial court’s denial of Boyd’s motion to correct error and its grant of summary judgment in favor of WHTIV and Tarr. Holds even though Boyd took 33 days to respond to WHTIV’s and Tarr’s motion for summary judgment, Trial Rule 6(E) allows for the extra time because the motion was delivered by mail. Also, since Boyd was denied additional time to complete discovery, the grant of summary judgment was premature.  

Dawn Willsey v. State of Indiana (NFP)
24A01-1302-CR-117
Criminal. Affirms 16-year aggregate sentence following guilty plea to two counts of burglary, Class B felonies.

James W. Avery v. Cynthia L. (Avery) Howe (NFP)
18A05-1301-DR-28
Domestic relation. Affirms trial court’s dissolution decree awarding 60 percent of the marital estate to James Avery and 40 percent  to Cynthia (Avery) Howe.

A.C. James, Jr., v. State of Indiana (NFP)
02A03-1304-CR-108
Criminal. Affirms conviction of murder and criminal recklessness, a Class D felony.

Brandon Titus v. State of Indiana (NFP)
79A02-1305-CR-460
Criminal. Reverses denial of Titus’s petition for modification of convictions and remands to the trial court for further action consistent with this opinion. Holds the trial court’s discretion was limited to determining if Titus had complied with the terms of the plea agreement. Therefore, the court abused its discretion when it considered whether Titus would or could pursue a career in law enforcement.  

Eric Powell v. State of Indiana (NFP)
49A02-1303-CR-226
Criminal. Affirms conviction of Class A misdemeanor possession of marijuana. Finds police officer’s request for Powell’s identification and search for outstanding arrest warrants were reasonable under Article 1, Section 11 of the Indiana Constitution.

The Indiana Tax Court did not submit any opinions by IL deadline. The 7th Circuit Court of Appeals did not submit any Indiana opinions by IL deadline.
 

ADVERTISEMENT

Sponsored by
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. Falk said “At this point, at this minute, we’ll savor this particular victory.” “It certainly is a historic week on this front,” Cockrum said. “What a delight ... “Happy Independence Day to the women of the state of Indiana,” WOW. So we broke with England for the right to "off" our preborn progeny at will, and allow the processing plant doing the dirty deeds (dirt cheap) to profit on the marketing of those "products of conception." I was completely maleducated on our nation's founding, it would seem. (But I know the ACLU is hard at work to remedy that, too.)

  2. congratulations on such balanced journalism; I also love how fetus disposal affects women's health protection, as covered by Roe...

  3. It truly sickens me every time a case is compared to mine. The Indiana Supreme Court upheld my convictions based on a finding of “hidden threats.” The term “hidden threat” never appeared until the opinion in Brewington so I had no way of knowing I was on trial for making hidden threats because Dearborn County Prosecutor F Aaron Negangard argued the First Amendment didn't protect lies. Negangard convened a grand jury to investigate me for making “over the top” and “unsubstantiated” statements about court officials, not hidden threats of violence. My indictments and convictions were so vague, the Indiana Court of Appeals made no mention of hidden threats when they upheld my convictions. Despite my public defender’s closing arguments stating he was unsure of exactly what conduct the prosecution deemed to be unlawful, Rush found that my lawyer’s trial strategy waived my right to the fundamental error of being tried for criminal defamation because my lawyer employed a strategy that attempted to take advantage of Negangard's unconstitutional criminal defamation prosecution against me. Rush’s opinion stated the prosecution argued two grounds for conviction one constitutional and one not, however the constitutional true threat “argument” consistently of only a blanket reading of subsection 1 of the intimidation statute during closing arguments, making it impossible to build any kind of defense. Of course intent was impossible for my attorney to argue because my attorney, Rush County Chief Public Defender Bryan Barrett refused to meet with me prior to trial. The record is littered with examples of where I made my concerns known to the trial judge that I didn’t know the charges against me, I did not have access to evidence, all while my public defender refused to meet with me. Special Judge Brian Hill, from Rush Superior Court, refused to address the issue with my public defender and marched me to trial without access to evidence or an understanding of the indictments against me. Just recently the Indiana Public Access Counselor found that four over four years Judge Hill has erroneously denied access to the grand jury audio from my case, the most likely reason being the transcription of the grand jury proceedings omitted portions of the official audio record. The bottom line is any intimidation case involves an action or statement that is debatably a threat of physical violence. There were no such statements in my case. The Indiana Supreme Court took partial statements I made over a period of 41 months and literally connected them with dots… to give the appearance that the statements were made within the same timeframe and then claimed a person similarly situated would find the statements intimidating while intentionally leaving out surrounding contextual factors. Even holding the similarly situated test was to be used in my case, the prosecution argued that the only intent of my public writings was to subject the “victims” to ridicule and hatred so a similarly situated jury instruction wouldn't even have applied in my case. Chief Justice Rush wrote the opinion while Rush continued to sit on a committee with one of the alleged victims in my trial and one of the judges in my divorce, just as she'd done for the previous 7+ years. All of this information, including the recent PAC opinion against the Dearborn Superior Court II can be found on my blog www.danbrewington.blogspot.com.

  4. On a related note, I offered the ICLU my cases against the BLE repeatedly, and sought their amici aid repeatedly as well. Crickets. Usually not even a response. I am guessing they do not do allegations of anti-Christian bias? No matter how glaring? I have posted on other links the amicus brief that did get filed (search this ezine, e.g., Kansas attorney), read the Thomas More Society brief to note what the ACLU ran from like vampires from garlic. An Examiner pledged to advance diversity and inclusion came right out on the record and demanded that I choose Man's law or God's law. I wonder, had I been asked to swear off Allah ... what result then, ICLU? Had I been found of bad character and fitness for advocating sexual deviance, what result then ICLU? Had I been lifetime banned for posting left of center statements denigrating the US Constitution, what result ICLU? Hey, we all know don't we? Rather Biased.

  5. It was mentioned in the article that there have been numerous CLE events to train attorneys on e-filing. I would like someone to provide a list of those events, because I have not seen any such events in east central Indiana, and since Hamilton County is one of the counties where e-filing is mandatory, one would expect some instruction in this area. Come on, people, give some instruction, not just applause!

ADVERTISEMENT