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

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