`

Opinions Jan. 22, 2016

January 22, 2016

The following Indiana Supreme Court opinion was posted after IL deadline Thursday:
Antonio Garcia v. State of Indiana
49S05-1505-CR-335
Criminal. Affirms denial of Garcia’s motion to suppress the admission of a pill container found during a quick pat-down search following a lawful arrest. Opening the pill container, which had one narcotic pill for which Garcia did not have a valid prescription, during the course of the pat-down search incident to his arrest for driving without a valid driver’s license was a reasonable search under Article 1, Section 11 of the Indiana Constitution.

 

Friday’s opinions
State of Indiana v. Frank Hancock

39A05-1506-CR-633
Criminal. Affirms trial court determination that Hancock, who was charged with two counts of Level 4 felony possession of a firearm by a serious violent felon, was not a SVF because his prior conviction for residential burglary in Ohio was not “substantially similar” to residential burglary in Indiana.

Aaron Lake, National City Mortgage Co., The Bank of New York Mellon Trust Company, N.A., and Unifund CCR Partners v. Kevin Butler d/b/a Butler Homes (mem. dec.)
18A04-1503-PL-129
Civil plenary. Affirms denial of The Bank of New York Mellon Trust Co.’s motion to enforce the court’s priority order and motion to reconsider.

Debbie Schinbeckler v. Express Scripts, Inc. and Travelers Insurance Co. (mem. dec.)
93A02-1503-EX-176
Agency action. Affirms order of the full Indiana Worker’s Compensation Board denying Schinbeckler’s claim that Travelers Insurance Co. acted with a lack of due diligence in adjusting her claim for workers’ compensation.

Scott Winingear v. State of Indiana (mem. dec.)
18A02-1502-CR-123
Criminal. Affirms denial of motion to dismiss Winingear’s Class C felony intimidation charge.

Lamocres A. Johnson v. State of Indiana (mem. dec.)
15A04-1501-CR-2
Criminal. Affirms Johnson’s convictions of Class B felonies dealing in a narcotic drug and conspiracy to commit dealing in a narcotic drug, holding his convictions do not constitute double jeopardy.
 

ADVERTISEMENT