ILNews

Opinions Oct. 31, 2013

October 31, 2013
Keywords
Back to TopE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

7th Circuit Court of Appeals
Mark Suesz, individually and on behalf of a class v. Med-1 Solutions LLC
13-1821
U.S. District Court, Southern District of Indiana, Indianapolis Division, Judge William T. Lawrence.
Civil. Affirms dismissal of Suesz’s complaint that Med-1 Solutions violated the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act after obtaining a favorable judgment against him in Marion County Small Claims Court in Pike Township because he neither lived nor signed the contract in that township. Small claim courts are not judicial districts for purposes of the FDCPA. Judge Posner dissents.

Katherine Cerajeski, guardian for Walter Cerajeski v. Greg Zoeller, Attorney General of the State of Indiana, et al.
12-3766
U.S. District Court, Southern District of Indiana, Indianapolis Division. Judge Jane Magnus-Stinson. Reverses dismissal of lawsuit challenging the constitutionality of part of the Indiana Unclaimed Property Act on the ground it authorizes the state to confiscate private property without any compensation to the owner. Interest on a bank account is considered property the owner is entitled to claim.

Indiana Supreme Court
Robert Bowen v. State of Indiana
http://media.ibj.com/Lawyer/websites/opinions/index.php?pdf=2013/october/10311301per.pdf
08S02-1306-CR-423
Criminal. Grants rehearing for the limited purpose of modifying the remand instructions to expand them since the judge who originally sentenced Bowen is no longer on the bench. Denies Bowen’s request that the case be remanded for imposition of concurrent sentences.

Indiana Court of Appeals
Gary Tibbs v. State of Indiana
49A05-1210-CR-517
Criminal. Affirms convictions of two counts of Class A felony child molesting, three counts of Class B felony child molesting and one count each of Class D felonies intimidation and child solicitation. The prosecutor’s comments did not amount to fundamental error as the comment was merely one upon the evidence, which is permitted during closing argument.

Michael R. Houston v. State of Indiana
02A03-1303-CR-84
Criminal. Reverses conviction of Class D felony possession of cocaine due to insufficient evidence. The state did not prove Houston had constructive possession of the drug.

A.C. v. N.J.
20A04-1301-DR-37
Domestic relation. Reverses ruling that A.C. does not have standing to seek visitation of a child that her domestic partner gave birth to. Remands with instructions to reconsider A.C.’s request for visitation under the standard set forth in third-party visitation cases. Affirms denial of request for joint custody.


Richard Prancik, b/n/f, Renee Prancik v. Oak Hill United School Corporation
27A05-1302-CT-86
Civil tort. Affirms summary judgment to Oak Hill on Prancik’s claim that the school corporation breached a duty to him when a fellow student assaulted him. The teacher was acting in accordance with reasonable protocol for supervising students at the time of the incident, neither she nor the school were on any kind of notice that K.M. could be violent, either generally or towards Prancik specifically, and he and Prancik were left unsupervised at most for a mere matter of minutes.

Courtney Glenn v. State of Indiana
49A04-1302-CR-79
Criminal. Affirms convictions of Class A misdemeanor resisting law enforcement and Class B misdemeanor disorderly conduct. Glenn’s feet-dragging and multiple attempts to pull away from the arresting officer were forcible resistance, and her actions were likely to result in serious bodily injury. Finds no double jeopardy violations.

David Wise v. State of Indiana
49A02-1301-CR-1
Criminal. Dismisses Wise’s interlocutory appeal of the order denying his pre-trial motion in limine to exclude evidence regarding video recordings of video files found on his mobile phone. The motion to certify was deemed denied by operation of Ind. Appellate Rule 14(B)(1)(e).

Tin Thang v. State of Indiana
49A04-1303-CR-110
Criminal. Reverses conviction of Class B misdemeanor public intoxication because the evidence is insufficient to establish that the intoxicated Thang alarmed another person within the meaning of the statute or endangered either his life or another person’s life.

George Small v. State of Indiana (NFP)
49A05-1304-CR-179
Criminal. Affirms conviction and sentence for Class D felony battery by bodily waste.

James Tinzley v. State of Indiana (NFP)
49A02-1303-CR-267
Criminal. Affirms conviction of Class A misdemeanor battery.

Gerald M. Joyce v. State of Indiana (NFP)
49A02-1302-CR-120
Criminal. Affirms convictions of Class C felony burglary and Class D felony theft.

In Re The Marriage of Brian C. Dickerson v. Shannon Dickerson (NFP)
32A04-1211-DR-579
Domestic relation. Affirms award of spousal maintenance to Shannon Dickerson; assignment of certain firearms to Shannon in the property division; finding that Brian Dickerson is in arrears in his child support obligation; conclusion that Shannon had not improperly diverted payments made pursuant to the provisional order; and conclusion that Brian’s military pension is not a marital asset. Remands with instructions to consider evidence and establish the amounts of Brian’s child support arrearage and the Lowe’s debt, the latter of which was assigned to Shannon.

In the Matter of A.G.(Minor Child), A Child Alleged to be a Child in Need of Services J.G.(Mother) v. Indiana Department of Child Services (NFP)
34A02-1306-JC-514
Juvenile. Dismisses appeal of CHINS finding as it is not a final appealable order.

Andre C. Greene v. State of Indiana (NFP)
02A03-1304-CR-161
Criminal. Affirms sentence following guilty plea to Class D felony domestic battery.

Bryce Leighton v. State of Indiana (NFP)
53A04-1303-CR-106
Criminal. Affirms sentence following guilty plea to Class B felony causing death when operating a motor vehicle with an ACE of 0.15 or more, Class D felony auto theft and Class D felony theft.

In the Matter of Custody of: L.T. and A.B., minor children, R.L. and P.L. v. A.B. and R.B. (NFP)
39A05-1305-MI-235
Miscellaneous. Affirms dismissal of the grandparents’ petition to modify custody.

Charles L. Hubbell v. State of Indiana (NFP)
20A04-1303-CR-145
Criminal. Affirms conviction of Class D felony failure to register as a sex offender.

Kevin James Porter v. State of Indiana (NFP)
71A03-1303-CR-94
Criminal. Affirms conviction of Class C felony burglary.

James Averitte v. State of Indiana (NFP)
49A04-1303-CR-119
Criminal. Affirms conviction of Class B misdemeanor harassment.

Steven Wilson v. State of Indiana (NFP)
33A04-1304-CR-189
Criminal. Affirms the seven-year habitual substance offender enhancement of Wilson’s two-and-a-half year sentence for Class D felony operating a vehicle while intoxicated.

In Re the Contempt of Dorothy Davis v. State of Indiana (NFP)
49A05-1307-CR-337
Criminal. Affirms imposition of 180-day sentence for indirect contempt after not appearing as a trial witness in court.

Sharon Jasinski v. Mirian Brown (NFP)
45A03-1212-SC-552
Small claim. Affirms $6,000 judgment in favor of Brown in a small claims action to recover property damages and loss of use damages after an auto accident.

Steven L. O'Bryant v. State of Indiana (NFP)
75A03-1301-CR-3
Criminal. Affirms convictions of four counts of Class A felony child molesting.

Jeffrey E. Howell v. State of Indiana (NFP)
33A01-1305-MI-245
Miscellaneous. The trial court had subject matter jurisdiction to consider Howell’s claims and therefore erred when it denied Howell’s motions on jurisdictional grounds. Moreover, the Sex Offender Management and Monitoring program’s requirements that Howell admit guilt and/or submit to a polygraph violate the Fifth Amendment. Remands with instructions to enter an order granting Howell’s renewed motion for restoration of credit time and class and to enter an order enjoining the DOC from requiring Howell to incriminate himself as part of the SOMM program.

Lyle B. Steele v. Asbury Glen Homes (NFP)
48A02-1209-SC-768
Small claim. Affirms judgment in favor of Asbury Glen Homes on its claim for damages and against Steele on his counterclaim for damages.

George Abel v. State of Indiana (NFP)
49A02-1206-PC-487
Post conviction. Affirms denial of petition for post-conviction relief.

The Indiana Tax Court posted no opinions by 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