Subscriber Benefit
As a subscriber you can listen to articles at work, in the car, or while you work out. Subscribe NowIndiana Court of Appeals
Alberto Garcia-Rodriguez v. State of Indiana
No. 26A-PC-1121
Appeal from the Marion Superior Court, Magistrate Michelle Waymire. In this case, the court reversed the post-conviction court’s denial of Alberto Garcia-Rodriguez’s petition for post-conviction relief. The court concluded that Garcia-Rodriguez’s trial counsel rendered ineffective assistance by failing to properly prosecute a motion for dismissal under Indiana Criminal Rule 4(B) due to delays in his trial. The post-conviction court acknowledged counsel’s “critical error” but denied the petition based on an incorrect assumption that the trial court would have prioritized a non-speedy-trial case over Garcia-Rodriguez’s speedy-trial request. The appellate court determined that, under applicable legal standards, the trial court would have been required to dismiss the charges against Garcia-Rodriguez had his counsel proceeded correctly. Judge Mathias authored the opinion, with judges Kenworthy and DeBoer concurring. Appellant’s attorneys: Amy E. Karozos, Public Defender of Indiana; and Steven L. Nisi, Deputy Public Defender, Indianapolis. Appellee’s attorneys: Office of the Indiana Attorney General.
Indiana Court of Appeals
Royal R. Davis Jr. v. State of Indiana
No. 25A-CR-2433
Appeal from the Allen Superior Court, Judge Frances C. Gull. Following a jury trial, Royal Davis Jr. was convicted of felony murder and sentenced to an aggregate of 77 years. Davis challenged the trial court’s decision allowing the state to strike a juror, the sufficiency of evidence for his conviction, and the appropriateness of his sentence. The court affirmed the trial court’s ruling, finding no error in the juror strike and sufficient evidence supporting the felony murder conviction. It concluded Davis’ sentence was not inappropriate given the brutal nature of the offense and his lengthy criminal history. Chief Judge Tavitas authored the opinion, with Judge Felix concurring and Judge Bradford concurring in part and concurring in result in part, noting that he would not have chosen to address the issue of whether Davis waived his Batson challenge, saying it was neither raised nor briefed by the parties. Appellant’s attorney: Gregory L. Fumarolo, Fort Wayne. Appellee’s attorney: Office of the Indiana Attorney General.
The following opinions were issued on Aug. 19 after The Indiana Lawyer’s deadline.
Indiana Tax Court
Andy Young v. Indiana Department of Local Government Finance
No. 25T-TA-00006
On appeal from a final determination of the Indiana Department of Local Government Finance, or DLGF. The court reviewed claims from Young regarding the timing of the 2023 land order submission, sufficiency of sales data, valuation methodologies, and notice provisions, ultimately finding the DLGF’s determination supported by substantial evidence and not arbitrary or capricious. Deborah Foster, who intervened in the appeal, raised concerns about discrepancies in property assessments and lack of notice, all of which the court deemed outside the DLGF’s authority in reviewing the land order. The court affirmed the DLGF’s final determination of the land order values. Judge McAdam authored the opinion. Petitioner appeared pro se. Intervenor’s attorney: Robert B. Golding Jr., Amber, Golding & Hofstetter, Dyer. Respondent’s attorney: Office of the Indiana Attorney General.
7th Circuit Court of Appeals
Merchants Bank of Indiana v. David L. Craik, et al.
No. 25-1798 & 25-1799
Appeal from the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Indiana, Indianapolis Division, Judge Matthew P. Brookman. Before Circuit Judges Ripple, Kolar and Maldonado. The district court granted summary judgment for the Guarantors, concluding that Merchants Bank could not simultaneously pursue foreclosure actions and collect on guaranties due to Indiana’s One Action statute. The appeals court found the statute ambiguous regarding its application to guaranties and whether waivers of its protections are enforceable under Indiana public policy. Consequently, the court decided to certify these questions to the Indiana Supreme Court for clarification. Judge Maldonado authored the opinion.
7th Circuit Court of Appeals
Kevin E. Smith v. Christopher Price, et al.
No. 25-1041
Appeal from the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Indiana, Indianapolis Division, Judge Jane Magnus-Stinson. Before Circuit Judges Ripple, Lee and Pryor. The court affirms the grant of summary judgment to Officers Lamb and Rilenge but vacates the judgment for Officer Price, remanding for further proceedings. The court finds that Officer Price may have violated Smith’s Eighth Amendment rights during a transport characterized by reckless driving and refusal to buckle Smith’s seatbelt, thus creating a substantial risk of serious harm. The court also concludes that Smith’s rights were clearly established at the time. Conversely, the court determines that Officers Lamb and Rilenge did not violate Smith’s rights during a subsequent transport as their actions did not constitute a clearly established violation. Judge Pryor authored the opinion, with Judge Ripple concurring in part and dissenting in part regarding the officers involved in the June 20 transport.
This content was created with the assistance of artificial intelligence and has been reviewed by an editor for accuracy.
Please enable JavaScript to view this content.