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. So that none are misinformed by my posting wihtout a non de plume here, please allow me to state that I am NOT an Indiana licensed attorney, although I am an Indiana resident approved to practice law and represent clients in Indiana's fed court of Nth Dist and before the 7th circuit. I remain licensed in KS, since 1996, no discipline. This must be clarified since the IN court records will reveal that I did sit for and pass the Indiana bar last February. Yet be not confused by the fact that I was so allowed to be tested .... I am not, to be clear in the service of my duty to be absolutely candid about this, I AM NOT a member of the Indiana bar, and might never be so licensed given my unrepented from errors of thought documented in this opinion, at fn2, which likely supports Mr Smith's initial post in this thread: http://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-7th-circuit/1592921.html

  2. When I served the State of Kansas as Deputy AG over Consumer Protection & Antitrust for four years, supervising 20 special agents and assistant attorneys general (back before the IBLE denied me the right to practice law in Indiana for not having the right stuff and pretty much crushed my legal career) we had a saying around the office: Resist the lure of the ring!!! It was a take off on Tolkiem, the idea that absolute power (I signed investigative subpoenas as a judge would in many other contexts, no need to show probable cause)could corrupt absolutely. We feared that we would overreach constitutional limits if not reminded, over and over, to be mindful to not do so. Our approach in so challenging one another was Madisonian, as the following quotes from the Father of our Constitution reveal: The essence of Government is power; and power, lodged as it must be in human hands, will ever be liable to abuse. We are right to take alarm at the first experiment upon our liberties. I believe there are more instances of the abridgement of freedom of the people by gradual and silent encroachments by those in power than by violent and sudden usurpations. Liberty may be endangered by the abuse of liberty, but also by the abuse of power. All men having power ought to be mistrusted. -- James Madison, Federalist Papers and other sources: http://www.constitution.org/jm/jm_quotes.htm RESIST THE LURE OF THE RING ALL YE WITH POLITICAL OR JUDICIAL POWER!

  3. My dear Mr Smith, I respect your opinions and much enjoy your posts here. We do differ on our view of the benefits and viability of the American Experiment in Ordered Liberty. While I do agree that it could be better, and that your points in criticism are well taken, Utopia does indeed mean nowhere. I think Madison, Jefferson, Adams and company got it about as good as it gets in a fallen post-Enlightenment social order. That said, a constitution only protects the citizens if it is followed. We currently have a bevy of public officials and judicial agents who believe that their subjectivism, their personal ideology, their elitist fears and concerns and cause celebs trump the constitutions of our forefathers. This is most troubling. More to follow in the next post on that subject.

  4. Yep I am not Bryan Brown. Bryan you appear to be a bigger believer in the Constitution than I am. Were I still a big believer then I might be using my real name like you. Personally, I am no longer a fan of secularism. I favor the confessional state. In religious mattes, it seems to me that social diversity is chaos and conflict, while uniformity is order and peace.... secularism has been imposed by America on other nations now by force and that has not exactly worked out very well.... I think the American historical experiment with disestablishmentarianism is withering on the vine before our eyes..... Since I do not know if that is OK for an officially licensed lawyer to say, I keep the nom de plume.

  5. I am compelled to announce that I am not posting under any Smith monikers here. That said, the post below does have a certain ring to it that sounds familiar to me: http://www.catholicnewworld.com/cnwonline/2014/0907/cardinal.aspx

ADVERTISEMENT