ILNews

Opinions Oct. 18, 2013

October 18, 2013
Keywords
Back to TopE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

Indiana Court of Appeals
Floyd Weddle v. State of Indiana
73A01-1209-CR-452
Criminal. Affirms on rehearing that convictions for possession of methamphetamine and manufacturing methamphetamine were not double jeopardy, and finding that the jury could have reasonably concluded that Weddle was in possession of methamphetamine and was in the process of manufacturing an additional amount of the drug.

David Rhodes v. State of Indiana
49A02-1304-CR-321
Criminal. Affirms conviction of two counts of theft, rejecting arguments that evidence from a police search of a suspect should have been suppressed. The panel found that the record shows that Rhodes made no objection to admission of the evidence that he later sought to suppress, so the argument had been waived. Even if it hadn’t been waived, an eyewitness description that led police to Rhodes provided probable cause.

Audie Wilson v. State of Indiana
49A02-1210-CR-846
Criminal. Affirms Wilson’s convictions for sexual misconduct with a minor, as a Class B felony; attempted sexual misconduct with a minor, as a Class B felony; and sexual misconduct with a minor, as a Class C felony. Finds the trial court did not abuse its discretion in allowing the evidence of defendant’s nicknames. Rules the defendant had the burden to proof – not the state – as to whether he reasonably believed the juvenile victim was at least 16 years old.  

Timothy S. Enders and Enders & Longway Builders, Inc., v. Debra Sue Enders as Personal Representative of the Estate of Randall Enders
71A03-1211-PL-494
Civil plenary. Grants petition for rehearing but stands by previous opinion. Court was not persuaded by Timothy Enders’s argument that the COA found the shares of the corporation were not jointly owned with rights of survivorship. Finds since the trial court properly dissolved the family business, the issues about the shares certificates should have been resolved by the trial court.

Chad Musick v. State of Indiana (NFP)
18A04-1302-PC-61
Post conviction. Affirms the denial of Musick’s post-conviction relief petition to the extent the post-conviction court found he did not receive ineffective assistance of appellate counsel. Reverses the denial with respect to the claim of ineffective assistance of trial counsel and remands for further proceedings on that claim.

Jolene G. Burtrum v. Citizens Health Center (NFP)
49A05-1305-PL-224
Civil plenary. Affirms dismissal of Burtrum’s complaint against Citizens Health Center, alleging breach of contract and seeking damages under the Wage Claim Statute.

J.M. v. State of Indiana (NFP)
52A02-1304-JV-361
Juvenile. Affirms order placing J.M. in the Indiana Department of Correction after he admitted to theft from a Burger King restaurant.

Christopher T. Taylor v. State of Indiana (NFP)
29A02-1301-PC-54
Post conviction. Affirms summary disposition regarding Taylor’s freestanding claims of error and ineffective assistance of counsel claim on the presumptive sentencing scheme. Reverses and remands denial of Taylor’s motion for an evidentiary hearing on the remaining ineffective assistance of counsel claims.

Louis O'Neal v. State of Indiana (NFP)
20A03-1302-PC-58
Post conviction. Affirms the denial of O’Neal’s motion to withdraw his post-conviction petition without prejudice.

Gregory Calvain v. State of Indiana (NFP)
41A01-1303-CR-116
Criminal. Affirms conviction of illegal consumption of an alcoholic beverage, a Class C misdemeanor.

Martin Cenfetelli v. State of Indiana (NFP)
84A01-1303-CR-118
Criminal. Affirms Cenfetelli’s 14-year sentence, $2,000 fine and five-year suspension of driver’s license for conviction of Class B felony operating a vehicle with a blood alcohol content of 0.15 or more causing death. Reverses home detention and community service as conditions of probation. Reverses and remands for further proceedings regarding the restitution order for $101,198.24.

The Indiana Supreme Court and the Indiana Tax Court did not post any opinions by IL deadline. The 7th Circuit Court of Appeals submitted no Indiana opinions by IL deadline.
 

ADVERTISEMENT

Sponsored by
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. I gave tempparry guardship to a friend of my granddaughter in 2012. I went to prison. I had custody. My daughter went to prison to. We are out. My daughter gave me custody but can get her back. She was not order to give me custody . but now we want granddaughter back from friend. She's 14 now. What rights do we have

  2. This sure is not what most who value good governance consider the Rule of Law to entail: "In a letter dated March 2, which Brizzi forwarded to IBJ, the commission dismissed the grievance “on grounds that there is not reasonable cause to believe that you are guilty of misconduct.”" Yet two month later reasonable cause does exist? (Or is the commission forging ahead, the need for reasonable belief be damned? -- A seeming violation of the Rules of Profession Ethics on the part of the commission) Could the rule of law theory cause one to believe that an explanation is in order? Could it be that Hoosier attorneys live under Imperial Law (which is also a t-word that rhymes with infamy) in which the Platonic guardians can do no wrong and never owe the plebeian class any explanation for their powerful actions. (Might makes it right?) Could this be a case of politics directing the commission, as celebrated IU Mauer Professor (the late) Patrick Baude warned was happening 20 years ago in his controversial (whisteblowing) ethics lecture on a quite similar topic: http://www.repository.law.indiana.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1498&context=ilj

  3. I have a case presently pending cert review before the SCOTUS that reveals just how Indiana regulates the bar. I have been denied licensure for life for holding the wrong views and questioning the grand inquisitors as to their duties as to state and federal constitutional due process. True story: https://www.scribd.com/doc/299040839/2016Petitionforcert-to-SCOTUS Shorter, Amici brief serving to frame issue as misuse of govt licensure: https://www.scribd.com/doc/312841269/Thomas-More-Society-Amicus-Brown-v-Ind-Bd-of-Law-Examiners

  4. Here's an idea...how about we MORE heavily regulate the law schools to reduce the surplus of graduates, driving starting salaries up for those new grads, so that we can all pay our insane amount of student loans off in a reasonable amount of time and then be able to afford to do pro bono & low-fee work? I've got friends in other industries, radiology for example, and their schools accept a very limited number of students so there will never be a glut of new grads and everyone's pay stays high. For example, my radiologist friend's school accepted just six new students per year.

  5. I totally agree with John Smith.

ADVERTISEMENT