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

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. Such things are no more elections than those in the late, unlamented Soviet Union.

  2. 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!!!

  3. 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?

  4. 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?

  5. 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.

ADVERTISEMENT