ILNews

Opinions Oct. 12, 2011

October 12, 2011
Keywords
Back to TopE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

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

Indiana Supreme Court had posted no opinions at IL deadline.

Indiana Court of Appeals
Julie Nunley, n/k/a Waldrath v. Jeremy A. Nunley
68A04-1105-DR-269
Domestic relation. Affirms that Jeremy Nunley is entitled to a reduction of his child support obligation due to the decrease in his income due to his incarceration for Class D felony nonsupport of a dependent. Declines to create an exception to the rules set forth in Clark and Lambert for individuals incarcerated for the crime of nonsupport of a dependent.

Todd A. Anderson v. Shauna Anderson
47A01-1104-DR-159
Domestic relation. Reverses denial of Todd Anderson’s request to credit against his child support obligation Social Security benefits Shauna Anderson received on behalf of their child prior to Todd’s petition to modify child support. Periodic SSD payments should be treated the same as lump-sum SSD payments and may be applied retroactively to an existing arrearage. Remands with instructions.

Jonathon D. Douglas v. State of Indiana and Indiana Family & Social Services Admin., as Assignee of the Support Rights of Mechelle (Allen) McCrory
40A01-1009-DR-466
Domestic relation. Reverses denial of Douglas’ petition to modify his child support obligation due to his incarceration for nonsupport of a dependent. Declines to create an exception to the rules set forth in Lambert and Clark. Holds that the trial court erred when it concluded that incarceration for nonsupport of a dependent child cannot amount to a change in circumstances so substantial and continuing as to make the terms of an existing child support order unreasonable. Remands for further proceedings.  

In the Matter of the Involuntary Commitment of A.M.
82A01-1101-MH-29
Mental health. Affirms involuntary commitment to a mental health facility. Sufficient evidence supports that A.M. is gravely disabled.

Paul Fonner v. State of Indiana
55A05-1104-CR-175
Criminal. Affirms convictions of Class D felony theft and Class A misdemeanor criminal trespass. The trial court’s failure to properly and clearly advise Fonner of his right to testify resulted in the loss of his ability to make that waiver knowingly and intelligently. This error did not amount to a reversible error, and there is sufficient evidence to support his convictions.

Abby Allen and Walter Moore v. Clarian Health Partners, Inc.
49A02-1011-CT-1174
Civil tort. Reverses dismissal of Allen and Moore’s complaint pursuant to Ind. Trial Rule 12(B)(6). Holds that the complaint is supported by more than 120 years of Indiana common law that a reasonable charge will be implied in a contract that does not otherwise specify a charge, and the complaint states a claim for breach of contract. Remands for further proceedings.

Robert Glispie v. State of Indiana
49A02-1102-CR-115
Criminal. Reverses conviction of Class A misdemeanor trespass. The state failed to prove an essential element of the offense.

Darik Morell, Sr. v. State of Indiana (NFP)
Criminal. Affirms conviction of and sentence for Class A felony neglect of a dependent.

Steven Howey v. State of Indiana (NFP)
34A02-1102-CR-125
Criminal. Affirms convictions of one count of Class A felony and two counts of Class B felony dealing in a schedule III controlled substance and one count of Class D felony maintaining a common nuisance.

Jerramy Martin v. State of Indiana (NFP)
49A02-1104-CR-297
Criminal. Affirms conviction of Class D felony resisting law enforcement.

Luis Gonzales v. State of Indiana (NFP)
49A04-1102-CR-73
Criminal. Affirms convictions of and sentence for 13 counts, including criminal confinement, intimidation, and sexual battery stemming from attacks of seven females. Reverses conviction of one count of Class B felony confinement and remands for further proceedings.

In the Paternity of P.B.; D.B. v. M.B. (NFP)
03A01-1012-JP-653
Juvenile. Affirms order granting father M.B. six hours of weekly unsupervised parenting time.

Julius A. Solis v. State of Indiana (NFP)
45A03-1008-CR-419
Criminal. Affirms conviction of and sentence for Class A felony voluntary manslaughter.

Charles Ford v. Indiana Dept. of Correction, et al. (NFP)
46A04-1103-CT-115
Civil tort. Affirms dismissal of tort complaint.

In the Paternity of A.G.L.; N.H. v. M.M. (NFP)
64A03-1103-JP-124
Juvenile. Affirms denial of motion to correct error challenging a child support order.

In the Matter of the Commitment of P.S.; P.S. v. Richard L. Roudebush Veterans Affairs Medical Center (NFP)
49A02-1107-MH-651
Mental health. Affirms involuntary commitment to mental health facility.

Indiana Tax Court had posted no opinions at 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