ILNews

Opinions Oct. 5. 2010

October 5, 2010
Keywords
Back to TopE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

Indiana Supreme Court
Wayne D. Kubsch v. State of Indiana
71S00-0708-PD-335
Post-conviction. Affirms judgment of the post-conviction court. Kubsch appeals, raising several issues for review, nine of which are waived because they were known and available at the time of Kubsch’s direct appeal and another three issues are barred because of the doctrine of res judicata. Regarding claims the prosecutor failed to disclose exculpatory evidence, rules information was not material and he failed to establish the nine requirements for obtaining a new trial due to newly discovered evidence so his Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (1963), claim fails. Also rules Kubsch failed to demonstrate that counsel rendered ineffective assistance.

Term. of Parent-Child Rel. of I.A.; J.H. v. IDCS
62S01-1003-JV-148
Juvenile. Reverses involuntary termination of parental rights of father, J.H., because the evidence did not prove there is a “reasonable probability” that the reasons for I.A.’s placement outside father’s home will not be remedied or that continuation of the parent-child relationship poses a threat to the child’s well-being. Justice Boehm dissents.

In the Matter of Paternity of P.S.; B.S. v. L.S. & G.D.
02S03-1010-JV-518
Juvenile. Rules the trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying father’s motion for relief from judgment.

Indiana Department of State Revenue v. Belterra Resort Indiana, LLC
49S10-1010-TA-519
Tax. Rules a contribution by a parent corporation to the capital of its subsidiary is not automatically excluded from Indiana use tax. At issue was whether the transfer of the riverboat from the parent company to its subsidiary corporation was a retail transaction under Indiana Code section 6-2.5-3-2(a).

Indiana Court of Appeals
Nevin Brooks v. State of Indiana
49A04-0911-CR-651
Criminal. Affirms conviction of and 55-year sentence for felony murder. Notes the trial court considered Brooks’ age in fashioning the sentence imposed and also considered Brooks’ criminal history. Rules that given the nature of the offense and the character of the offender, the sentence imposed by the trial court is not inappropriate.

State of Indiana v. Amanda Renzulli

32A04-1003-CR-194
Criminal. Affirms trial court’s suppression of evidence obtained after a traffic stop of Renzulli. Judge Bradford dissents, believing police officers had reasonable suspicion.

Tyra L. Brooks v. Larry D. Brooks (NFP)
10A05-0909-CV-546
Civil. Affirms trial court’s dissolution decree.

David Ramos v. Robert W. James and David Hoover (NFP)
34A05-1005-CT-301
Civil tort. Affirms trial court’s grant of summary judgment in favor of David Hoover.

Term. of Parent-Child Rel. of B.D.; G.D. v. IDCS (NFP)
02A03-1004-JT-224
Juvenile Termination. Affirms involuntary termination of parental rights.

Mardi Clemens v. Daniel Clemens (NFP)
02A03-1003-DR-118
Domestic Relation. Concludes the trial court committed error by ordering the wife to pay damages to the husband equal to the amount of the death benefits of the first life insurance policy surrendered by her. Remands for the trial court to adjust its order so that the wife pays to husband the amount that wife received when she liquidated the policy plus any interest that has accrued.

Debra L. Walker v. David M. Pullen (NFP)
64A05-1002-CT-127
Civil tort. Affirms trial court’s grant of Pullen’s motion to correct error after a jury verdict.

William Moore v. State of Indiana (NFP)
49A04-1002-CR-58
Criminal. Affirms convictions of Class B felony burglary and Class D felony theft.

David Likens v. State of Indiana (NFP)
49A02-1003-CR-360
Criminal. Affirms conviction of and 10-year sentence for Class B felony battery.

Kristopher G. Runkle v. State of Indiana (NFP)
05A02-1004-CR-479
Criminal. Affirms conviction of and 4-year sentence for Class D felony residential entry and Class A misdemeanor battery resulting in bodily injury.

Angel L. Highbaugh v. State of Indiana (NFP)
20A03-0911-CR-547
Criminal. Affirms conviction of Class D felony domestic battery.

Robert Lavaugh Ackles v. State of Indiana (NFP)
48A02-1002-CR-118
Criminal. Affirms 36-month sentence – 24 months executed, 12 months suspended – after guilty plea to Class D felony operating a vehicle with an alcohol concentration equivalent of at least 0.15, and failure to yield right-of-way to emergency vehicle and operating a vehicle without financial responsibility, both as a Class A infraction.

Thomas L. White v. State of Indiana (NFP)
20A05-1001-CR-38
Criminal. Affirms conviction of Class D felony operating a vehicle while intoxicated but remands for the trial court to issue a new sentencing order and abstract of judgment regarding his second conviction of OWI to reflect that this conviction is merged with Count I.

Roderick L. Ensley v. State of Indiana (NFP)
02A03-0907-CR-348
Criminal. Affirms in part, reverses in part, and vacates. Rules the trial court did not abuse its discretion in admitting the evidence discovered during the search. Also concludes the evidence was insufficient to support Ensley’s conviction of Class D felony possession of cocaine so reverses that conviction and directs the trial court to vacate the conviction and the attendant sentence.

The Indiana Tax Court had posted no opinions at 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