Opinions Aug. 25, 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

Editor’s note: Today’s opinions have been updated with a late-breaking Indiana Supreme Court opinion.

Indiana Supreme Court
Benjamin S. Smith v. Franklin Township Community School Corporation
20S-CT-98
Civil tort. Affirms the denial of Benjamin Smith’s motion for reinstatement of his lawsuit against Franklin Township Community School Corporation. Finds Smith cannot use a Trial Rule 41(F) filing to collaterally attack the merits of the dismissal order. Also finds Smith failed to preserve a substantive challenge to the dismissal decision, so the Marion Superior Court acted within its discretion when it denied his motion for reinstatement.

Indiana Court of Appeals
In the Matter of the Termination of the Parent-Child Relationship of C.C. (Minor Child) and B.C. (Father) v. Indiana Department of Child Services
20A-JT-289
Juvenile termination of parental rights. Affirms the Madison Circuit Court’s termination of father B.C.’s parental rights with regard to minor child C.C., finding the trial court ruling was not clearly erroneous. Judge Rudolph Pyle dissents with separate opinion and would reverse, finding the Department of Child Services failed to meet its burden and termination is not warranted.

Nashid Muhammad v. State of Indiana (mem. dec.)
19A-CR-2397
Criminal. Affirms Nashid Muhammad’s convictions of Class A misdemeanor domestic battery, Class B misdemeanor possession of marijuana and Level 4 felony unlawful possession of a firearm by a serious violent felon, and his aggregate sentence of 11½ years with 2½ years suspended to probation. Finds the Tippecanoe Superior Court did not violate Muhammad’s rights under the Fourth Amendment or Article 1, Section 11 of the Indiana Constitution, the evidence was sufficient to support the conviction and his sentence was not inappropriate.

Alex Cordell Hughes v. State of Indiana (mem. dec.)
20A-CR-149
Criminal. Affirms Alex Hughes’ conviction of Level 5 felony criminal recklessness, finding he was not deprived of due process, nor did he show fundamental error in his trial in Lake Superior Court. Likewise, the state presented sufficient evidence to negate his claim of self-defense.

Frederick A. Young v. Mark Sevier, Indiana Parole Board (mem. dec.)
20A-MI-239
Miscellaneous. Affirms the Henry Circuit Court’s denial of Frederick Young’s motion to correct error after the denial of his petition for writ of habeas corpus challenging the revocation of parole from his child molesting conviction. Finds Young did not develop an argument or cite to the record to indicate what credit time he has earned and that his 35-year sentence has not expired.

Kenneth Saylor v. State of Indiana (mem. dec.)
20A-CR-759
Criminal. Affirms on interlocutory appeal the Washington Superior Court’s denial of Kenneth Saylor’s motion to suppress evidence that led to charges including dealing in methamphetamine. Finds substantial evidence supports denial of the motion to suppress.

Seth Cristobal v. Ashley N. Hudson (mem. dec.)
20A-MI-130
Miscellaneous. Affirms the denial of Seth Cristobal’s petition for emergency custody of one of his two children. Finds the Blackford Superior Court did not abuse its discretion in denying the petition, nor did it err in declining to conduct an in camera interview.

Donald Swain v. State of Indiana (mem. dec.)
20A-CR-286
Criminal. Affirms the revocation of Donald Swain’s probation, finding the Madison Circuit Court did not abuse its discretion.

In the Termination of the Parent-Child Relationship of T.H. (Minor Child), and L.H. (Father) v. Indiana Department of Child Services (mem. dec.)
20A-JT-710
Juvenile termination of parental rights. Affirms the termination of father L.H.’s parental rights with regard to T.H., finding the Floyd Circuit Court’s determinations that the conditions resulting in T.H.’s removal or the reasons for placement outside of L.H.’s care will not be remedied, and that termination is in the child’s best interests, are supported by clear and convincing evidence.

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 }}