Opinions April 2, 2020

  • Print
Listen to this story

Subscriber Benefit

As a subscriber you can listen to articles at work, in the car, or while you work out. Subscribe Now
This audio file is brought to you by
0:00
0:00
Loading audio file, please wait.
  • 0.25
  • 0.50
  • 0.75
  • 1.00
  • 1.25
  • 1.50
  • 1.75
  • 2.00

Indiana Court of Appeals
In the Matter of the Termination of Parental Rights of: F.F. (Minor Child), and J.F. (Mother) v. Indiana Department of Child Services (mem. dec.)
19A-JT-2423
Juvenile termination. Affirms the termination of J.F.’s parent-child relationship with her child, F.F. Finds that the Madison Circuit Court did not err by finding that there is a reasonable probability that the conditions resulting in child’s initial and continued removal from mother’s care will not be remedied.

In the Matter of the Termination of the Parent-Child Relationship of: T.R. and M.R. (Minor Children) and A.R. (Mother) v. The Indiana Department of Child Services (mem. dec.)
19A-JT-2472
Juvenile termination. Affirms the termination of A.R.’s parental rights to her children, T.R. and M.R. Finds more than enough evidence to support the Madison Superior Court’s conclusion that termination was in the children’s best interests.

Jeffery T. Gorham v. Fazia Deen-Bacchus (mem. dec.)
19A-PL-1193
Civil plenary. Affirms in part, reverses in part, remands. Finds the Hamilton Superior Court erred by concluding that the dissolution court’s decision to set aside Jeffrey Gorham’s premarital student loans from the martial pot was within its discretion; however, finds said error was harmless. Likewise finds the trial court erred in its calculation of damages regarding the American Express card debt. Finds its decision to award Gorham damages in the amount of 45% of the Chase IRA was not clearly erroneous; however, the trial court abused its discretion in awarding Gorham attorney fees. Remands with instructions to award Gorham damages in the amount of 45% of the Chase IRA and 55% of the AMEX debt and to vacate the award of attorney fees.

Craig Lenahan v. State of Indiana (mem. dec.)
19A-CR-1504
Criminal. Affirms Craig Lenahan’s Level 6 felony possession of methamphetamine. Finds the Brown Circuit Court did not commit fundamental error when it tendered jury instruction number 15. Finds Lenahan’s alleged errors did not violate his fundamental right to a fair trial. Finally, finds sufficient evidence to support the conviction.

Ronald E. Voelker, Jr. v. State of Indiana (mem. dec.)
19A-CR-2141
Criminal. Affirms Ronald Voelker, Jr.’s conviction for Level 6 felony escape and one-year jail sentence. Finds Voelker failed to demonstrate that his sentence, which was already below the statutory advisory sentence, is an outlier that should be further reduced.

Ronald Earl Menzie v. State of Indiana (mem. dec.)
19A-CR-2290
Criminal. Affirms Ronald Menzie’s conviction of murder and Level 6 felony criminal recklessness. Finds the Lake Superior Court did not err by refusing to give a jury instruction on voluntary manslaughter or by admitting autopsy photographs into evidence.

Stacy Yuron Hart v. State of Indiana (mem. dec.)
19A-PC-2279
Post conviction. Affirms the denial of Stacy Hart’s petition for post-conviction relief in full without a hearing. Finds the Vanderburgh Superior Court did not err by denying Hart relief.

Tammy Echeverria v. State of Indiana (mem. dec.)
19A-CR-1459
Criminal. Affirms Tammy Echeverria’s conviction and aggregate 10-year sentence for conviction of Level 2 felony dealing in methamphetamine and Level 2 felony dealing in a narcotic drug. Finds Echeverria was given ample time to review her presentence investigation report, and, therefore, is not entitled to relief regarding this issue. Also finds the trial court did not err by admitting evidence of firearms. Finds any error in admitting ledgers or firearms was, at most, harmless.

Sharon Kay Gahimer v. Gary Wayne Gahimer (mem. dec.)
19A-DN-2473
Domestic relations without children. Affirms the Decatur Circuit Court’s dissolution of marriage decree for Sharon Gahimer and Gary Gahimer. Finds the trial court did not abuse its discretion by including the full value of the parties’ retirement accounts in the marital estate.

Please enable JavaScript to view this content.

{{ articles_remaining }}
Free {{ article_text }} Remaining
{{ articles_remaining }}
Free {{ article_text }} Remaining Article limit resets on
{{ count_down }}