ILNews

Opinions Sept. 28, 2012

September 28, 2012
Keywords
Back to TopE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

7th Circuit Court of Appeals posted no opinions by IL deadline.

Indiana Supreme Court and Tax Court posted no opinions by IL deadline.


Indiana Court of Appeals
Steven Duncan v. State of Indiana
82A01-1201-CR-22
Criminal. Affirms in part and reverses in part six convictions of Class A misdemeanor cruelty to an animal. Duncan did not knowingly waive his right to a jury trial because the court did not fully advise him of his rights and obligations. Finds the animal cruelty statute is not vague as applied to him and there was sufficient evidence to overcome a defense of necessity. Remands for a jury trial.

Paul Hardy v. State of Indiana
88A01-1203-CR-93
Criminal. Affirms the trial court did not abuse its discretion in revoking Hardy’s probation in multiple cases and ordering him to serve all of his previously suspended sentences. The trial court had the authority to revoke his probation in two of the cases in which he had not yet begun serving his probation, and he signed an agreement to extend his probation in three other cases beyond the original periods, which allowed the trial court to legally revoke them after the original probation periods were over.

Robert Owen Luetke v. State of Indiana (NFP)
03A01-1202-CR-46
Criminal. Affirms convictions of Class C felony burglary and Class D felony theft.

Paul Sparks v. State of Indiana (NFP)
70A01-1204-CR-140
Criminal. Affirms sentence following guilty plea to Class C felony operating a motor vehicle while privileges are forfeited for life.

Matthew Thies v. State of Indiana (NFP)
15A01-1111-CR-553
Criminal. Affirms convictions of three counts of Class A felony child molesting and two counts of Class C felony child molesting.

Victor J. DiMaggio, III v. Elias Rosario and Mark Nebel (NFP)
64A04-1204-PL-169
Civil plenary. Affirms dismissal of DiMaggio’s amended complaint against Nebel.

Nathan Haas v. State of Indiana (NFP)
15A01-1203-CR-109
Criminal. Affirms revocation of probation and reinstatement of previously suspended sentence.

Paul Plummer v. State of Indiana (NFP)
49A05-1203-CR-106
Criminal. Reverses conviction of Class A misdemeanor invasion of privacy.

Nathan W. Golden v. State of Indiana (NFP)
05A02-1204-CR-345
Criminal. Affirms sentence for Class D felony theft.

Robert G. Bollman, Jr. v. State of Indiana (NFP)
20A03-1202-CR-100
Criminal. Affirms sentence following guilty plea to Class C felony escape.

Marvin Smith v. City of Richmond and City of Richmond Public Works (NFP)
89A01-1202-CT-45
Civil tort. Affirms grant of summary judgment in favor of the city of Richmond with respect to Smith’s tort claim.

Joy M. Graf v. Craig W. Graf (NFP)
64A03-1206-DR-265
Domestic relation. Reverses denial of Joy Graf’s motion to suspend the driver’s license of Craig Graf due to failure to pay child support. Remands for further proceedings.

State of Indiana v. Jamie Ray Scheckles (NFP)
10A01-1202-CR-71
Criminal. Reverses grant of Scheckles’ motion to enter work release and orders Scheckles return to the Department of Correction.

Michael Sopher v. State of Indiana (NFP)
70A01-1203-CR-133
Criminal. Affirms sentence following guilty plea to Class C felony child molesting.

Kevin D. Webster v. State of Indiana (NFP)
49A02-1201-PC-86
Post conviction. Affirms denial of petition for post-conviction relief.

Michael S. Scroggins v. State of Indiana (NFP)
39A01-1203-CR-91
Criminal. Affirms sentence following guilty plea to two counts of Class C felony reckless homicide and one count of Class C felony criminal recklessness.

Curtis Bacon, Jr. v. State of Indiana (NFP)
79A02-1112-CR-1163
Criminal. Affirms convictions and sentence for Class B felony aggravated battery; and Class C felonies criminal recklessness committed while armed with a deadly weapon, and carrying a handgun without a license; and the sentencing enhancement of unlawful use of a firearm.
 

ADVERTISEMENT

Sponsored by
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. He TIL team,please zap this comment too since it was merely marking a scammer and not reflecting on the story. Thanks, happy Monday, keep up the fine work.

  2. You just need my social security number sent to your Gmail account to process then loan, right? Beware scammers indeed.

  3. The appellate court just said doctors can be sued for reporting child abuse. The most dangerous form of child abuse with the highest mortality rate of any form of child abuse (between 6% and 9% according to the below listed studies). Now doctors will be far less likely to report this form of dangerous child abuse in Indiana. If you want to know what this is, google the names Lacey Spears, Julie Conley (and look at what happened when uninformed judges returned that child against medical advice), Hope Ybarra, and Dixie Blanchard. Here is some really good reporting on what this allegation was: http://media.star-telegram.com/Munchausenmoms/ Here are the two research papers: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/0145213487900810 http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0145213403000309 25% of sibling are dead in that second study. 25%!!! Unbelievable ruling. Chilling. Wrong.

  4. Mr. Levin says that the BMV engaged in misconduct--that the BMV (or, rather, someone in the BMV) knew Indiana motorists were being overcharged fees but did nothing to correct the situation. Such misconduct, whether engaged in by one individual or by a group, is called theft (defined as knowingly or intentionally exerting unauthorized control over the property of another person with the intent to deprive the other person of the property's value or use). Theft is a crime in Indiana (as it still is in most of the civilized world). One wonders, then, why there have been no criminal prosecutions of BMV officials for this theft? Government misconduct doesn't occur in a vacuum. An individual who works for or oversees a government agency is responsible for the misconduct. In this instance, somebody (or somebodies) with the BMV, at some time, knew Indiana motorists were being overcharged. What's more, this person (or these people), even after having the error of their ways pointed out to them, did nothing to fix the problem. Instead, the overcharges continued. Thus, the taxpayers of Indiana are also on the hook for the millions of dollars in attorneys fees (for both sides; the BMV didn't see fit to avail itself of the services of a lawyer employed by the state government) that had to be spent in order to finally convince the BMV that stealing money from Indiana motorists was a bad thing. Given that the BMV official(s) responsible for this crime continued their misconduct, covered it up, and never did anything until the agency reached an agreeable settlement, it seems the statute of limitations for prosecuting these folks has not yet run. I hope our Attorney General is paying attention to this fiasco and is seriously considering prosecution. Indiana, the state that works . . . for thieves.

  5. I'm glad that attorney Carl Hayes, who represented the BMV in this case, is able to say that his client "is pleased to have resolved the issue". Everyone makes mistakes, even bureaucratic behemoths like Indiana's BMV. So to some extent we need to be forgiving of such mistakes. But when those mistakes are going to cost Indiana taxpayers millions of dollars to rectify (because neither plaintiff's counsel nor Mr. Hayes gave freely of their services, and the BMV, being a state-funded agency, relies on taxpayer dollars to pay these attorneys their fees), the agency doesn't have a right to feel "pleased to have resolved the issue". One is left wondering why the BMV feels so pleased with this resolution? The magnitude of the agency's overcharges might suggest to some that, perhaps, these errors were more than mere oversight. Could this be why the agency is so "pleased" with this resolution? Will Indiana motorists ever be assured that the culture of incompetence (if not worse) that the BMV seems to have fostered is no longer the status quo? Or will even more "overcharges" and lawsuits result? It's fairly obvious who is really "pleased to have resolved the issue", and it's not Indiana's taxpayers who are on the hook for the legal fees generated in these cases.

ADVERTISEMENT