ILNews

Opinions Sept. 24, 2012

September 24, 2012
Keywords
Back to TopE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

Indiana Court of Appeals
State of Indiana v. Russell Oney
49A05-1204-CR-196
Criminal. Reverses and remands a trial court ruling that vacated a determination that a defendant was a habitual traffic violator, holding that even though one of the predicate offenses later was vacated in post-conviction relief, the BMV’s determination that Oney was a habitual traffic offender did not constitute manifest injustice.

Gregory Kirk v. State of Indiana
49A02-1110-CR-979
Criminal. Affirms in part, reverses in part and remands. Reverses conviction for conspiracy to commit dealing in a controlled substance and remands to the trial court to change sentence accordingly, holding that the court abused its discretion in admitting incriminating evidence of Kirk’s stepson’s statements and testimony regarding cell phone texts.

Marquis Dayvon Brooks v. Anderson Police Dept., City of Anderson, and Chris Barnett
48A02-1110-CT-1045
Civil tort. Reverses summary judgment in favor of defendants, finding that there are material issues of fact that should permit Brooks to pursue a civil tort for injuries sustained during his arrest, including bites from a police dog.

Parkview Hospital, Inc. v. Geico General Insurance Company
02A04-1201-PL-5
Civil plenary. Affirms trial court dismissal of the hospital’s claim against the insurance company arising from its treatment of a patient injured in a Tennessee vehicle crash, holding that the court has no jurisdiction to entertain a claim of a hospital lien against a judgment in another state unless the hospital has “enter[ed], in writing, upon the judgment docket where the judgment is recorded, the hospital’s intention to hold a lien upon the judgment, together with the amount claimed.”

Carlos Hale v. State of Indiana
49A02-1202-CR-83
Criminal. Affirms Class B felony robbery conviction based on a show-up identification and rebukes defendant for trying to use the fundamental error doctrine to raise an objection to evidence that defense counsel did not object to during the trial.

Thomas E. Lynch v. Arthur H. Huser (NFP)
49A05-1204-PL-162
Civil plenary. Affirms trial court judgment in favor of Huser.

Sean Cole v. State of Indiana (NFP)
49A02-1202-CR-66
Criminal. Affirms conviction of Class B felony dealing in cocaine.

Bryan Scholtes v. State of Indiana (NFP)
15A05-1202-CR-78
Criminal. Affirms trial court revocation of probation.

Steven R. Brandenburg v. First Republic Mortgage Corporation (NFP)
29A02-1201-PL-70
Civil plenary. Affirms trial court grant of summary judgment in favor of First Republic.

Olga Markova v. State of Indiana (NFP)
49A02-1110-PC-908
Post-conviction relief. Affirms trial court denial of post-conviction relief that sought to set aside guilty plea to charge of Class D felony theft.

Justin L. Smart v. State of Indiana (NFP)
46A05-1201-CR-20
Criminal. Affirms convictions of Class B felony dealing in cocaine and Class C felony dealing in a look-alike substance.

Andrew Humphreys v. State of Indiana (NFP)
79A04-1112-CR-677
Criminal. Affirms in part, reverses in part and remands, finding the court erred in applying a 16-year sentence for adjudication as a habitual offender, and instructed the court to specify which of Humphrey’s methamphetamine-related convictions is enhanced by the adjudication.

Troy Marie Cain Cornell v. State of Indiana (NFP)
02A03-1201-CR-33
Criminal. Affirms conviction of Class A misdemeanor prostitution.

Charles Davis, Sr. v. State of Indiana (NFP)
03A05-1111-CR-582
Criminal. Affirms conviction of dealing in methamphetamine, a Class B felony.

Matthew M. Derrick v. Estate of Ruth F. Korn (NFP)
71A03-1204-ES-178
Probate/estate. Affirms probate court ruling disallowing Derrick’s claim of a life estate and payments of maintenance of real property.

David Brown d/b/a DB Express v. Utility Peterbilt of Indianapolis (NFP)
49A05-1202-PL-61
Civil plenary. Affirms denial of plaintiff’s motion to correct error challenging a grant of summary judgment in favor of Peterbilt.

 

ADVERTISEMENT

Sponsored by
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. Are you financially squeezed? Do you seek funds to pay off credits and debts Do you seek finance to set up your own business? Are you in need of private or business loans for various purposes? Do you seek loans to carry out large projects Do you seek funding for various other processes? If you have any of the above problems, we can be of assistance to you but I want you to understand that we give out our loans at an interest rate of 3% . Interested Persons should contact me with this below details . LOAN APPLICATION FORM First name: Date of birth (yyyy-mm-dd): Loan Amount Needed: Duration: Occupation: Phone: Country: My contact email :jasonwillfinanceloanss@hotmail.com Note:that all mail must be sent to: jasonwillfinanceloanss@hotmail.com Thanks and God Bless . Jason Will

  2. Can I get this form on line,if not where can I obtain one. I am eligible.

  3. What a fine example of the best of the Hoosier tradition! How sad that the AP has to include partisan snark in the obit for this great American patriot and adventurer.

  4. Why are all these lawyers yakking to the media about pending matters? Trial by media? What the devil happened to not making extrajudicial statements? The system is falling apart.

  5. It is a sad story indeed as this couple has been only in survival mode, NOT found guilty with Ponzi, shaken down for 5 years and pursued by prosecution that has been ignited by a civil suit with very deep pockets wrenched in their bitterness...It has been said that many of us are breaking an average of 300 federal laws a day without even knowing it. Structuring laws, & civilForfeiture laws are among the scariest that need to be restructured or repealed . These laws were initially created for drug Lords and laundering money and now reach over that line. Here you have a couple that took out their own money, not drug money, not laundering. Yes...Many upset that they lost money...but how much did they make before it all fell apart? No one ask that question? A civil suit against Williams was awarded because he has no more money to fight...they pushed for a break in order...they took all his belongings...even underwear, shoes and clothes? who does that? What allows that? Maybe if you had the picture of him purchasing a jacket at the Goodwill just to go to court the next day...his enemy may be satisfied? But not likely...bitterness is a master. For happy ending lovers, you will be happy to know they have a faith that has changed their world and a solid love that many of us can only dream about. They will spend their time in federal jail for taking their money from their account, but at the end of the day they have loyal friends, a true love and a hope of a new life in time...and none of that can be bought or taken That is the real story.

ADVERTISEMENT