Opinions Sept. 24, 2012

September 24, 2012
Back to TopE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

Indiana Court of Appeals
State of Indiana v. Russell Oney
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
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
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
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
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)
Civil plenary. Affirms trial court judgment in favor of Huser.

Sean Cole v. State of Indiana (NFP)
Criminal. Affirms conviction of Class B felony dealing in cocaine.

Bryan Scholtes v. State of Indiana (NFP)
Criminal. Affirms trial court revocation of probation.

Steven R. Brandenburg v. First Republic Mortgage Corporation (NFP)
Civil plenary. Affirms trial court grant of summary judgment in favor of First Republic.

Olga Markova v. State of Indiana (NFP)
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)
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)
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)
Criminal. Affirms conviction of Class A misdemeanor prostitution.

Charles Davis, Sr. v. State of Indiana (NFP)
Criminal. Affirms conviction of dealing in methamphetamine, a Class B felony.

Matthew M. Derrick v. Estate of Ruth F. Korn (NFP)
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)
Civil plenary. Affirms denial of plaintiff’s motion to correct error challenging a grant of summary judgment in favor of Peterbilt.



Sponsored by
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. This is ridiculous. Most JDs not practicing law don't know squat to justify calling themselves a lawyer. Maybe they should try visiting the inside of a courtroom before they go around calling themselves lawyers. This kind of promotional BS just increases the volume of people with JDs that are underqualified thereby dragging all the rest of us down likewise.

  2. I think it is safe to say that those Hoosier's with the most confidence in the Indiana judicial system are those Hoosier's who have never had the displeasure of dealing with the Hoosier court system.

  3. I have an open CHINS case I failed a urine screen I have since got clean completed IOP classes now in after care passed home inspection my x sister in law has my children I still don't even have unsupervised when I have been clean for over 4 months my x sister wants to keep the lids for good n has my case working with her I just discovered n have proof that at one of my hearing dcs case worker stated in court to the judge that a screen was dirty which caused me not to have unsupervised this was at the beginning two weeks after my initial screen I thought the weed could have still been in my system was upset because they were suppose to check levels n see if it was going down since this was only a few weeks after initial instead they said dirty I recently requested all of my screens from redwood because I take prescriptions that will show up n I was having my doctor look at levels to verify that matched what I was prescripted because dcs case worker accused me of abuseing when I got my screens I found out that screen I took that dcs case worker stated in court to judge that caused me to not get granted unsupervised was actually negative what can I do about this this is a serious issue saying a parent failed a screen in court to judge when they didn't please advise

  4. I have a degree at law, recent MS in regulatory studies. Licensed in KS, admitted b4 S& 7th circuit, but not to Indiana bar due to political correctness. Blacklisted, nearly unemployable due to hostile state action. Big Idea: Headwinds can overcome, esp for those not within the contours of the bell curve, the Lego Movie happiness set forth above. That said, even without the blacklisting for holding ideas unacceptable to the Glorious State, I think the idea presented above that a law degree open many vistas other than being a galley slave to elitist lawyers is pretty much laughable. (Did the law professors of Indiana pay for this to be published?)

  5. Joe, you might want to do some reading on the fate of Hoosier whistleblowers before you get your expectations raised up.