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. 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?

  2. Seventh Circuit Court Judge Diane Wood has stated in “The Rule of Law in Times of Stress” (2003), “that neither laws nor the procedures used to create or implement them should be secret; and . . . the laws must not be arbitrary.” According to the American Bar Association, Wood’s quote drives home this point: The rule of law also requires that people can expect predictable results from the legal system; this is what Judge Wood implies when she says that “the laws must not be arbitrary.” Predictable results mean that people who act in the same way can expect the law to treat them in the same way. If similar actions do not produce similar legal outcomes, people cannot use the law to guide their actions, and a “rule of law” does not exist.

  3. Linda, I sure hope you are not seeking a law license, for such eighteenth century sentiments could result in your denial in some jurisdictions minting attorneys for our tolerant and inclusive profession.

  4. Mazel Tov to the newlyweds. And to those bakers, photographers, printers, clerks, judges and others who will lose careers and social standing for not saluting the New World (Dis)Order, we can all direct our Two Minutes of Hate as Big Brother asks of us. Progress! Onward!

  5. My daughter was taken from my home at the end of June/2014. I said I would sign the safety plan but my husband would not. My husband said he would leave the house so my daughter could stay with me but the case worker said no her mind is made up she is taking my daughter. My daughter went to a friends and then the friend filed a restraining order which she was told by dcs if she did not then they would take my daughter away from her. The restraining order was not in effect until we were to go to court. Eventually it was dropped but for 2 months DCS refused to allow me to have any contact and was using the restraining order as the reason but it was not in effect. This was Dcs violating my rights. Please help me I don't have the money for an attorney. Can anyone take this case Pro Bono?

ADVERTISEMENT