Opinions Jan. 26, 2020

Indiana Court of Appeals
Jeffrey Thomas Maxwell v. Shirley Sue Maxwell 
Domestic relations. Reverses in part the order dividing marital property between Jeffrey and Shirley Maxwell. Finds that assigning the tax burden related to Jeffrey’s pension to Jeffrey alone has the result of significantly altering the Hancock Circuit Court’s intended 60/40 apportionment. Also finds Jeffrey is free to pay off the equalization payment more quickly than the $500 per month order and thereby incur less in interest. Remands for clarification regarding the division of Jeffrey’s military pension, and for the trial court to consider the tax consequences of its disposition and to redetermine the amount of the equalization payment. Judge Nancy Vaidik concurs and dissents in part with separate opinion.

Trey Matthew Fields v. State of Indiana
Criminal. Reverses the denial of Trey M. Fields’ petition to file a belated notice of appeal. Finds that notwithstanding a waiver-of-appeal provision in his plea agreement, Fields is an “eligible defendant” entitled to a belated appeal of his sentence under Post-Conviction Rule 2. Also finds that Fields’ failure to file a timely notice of appeal was not due to his own fault and that he was diligent in requesting permission to file a belated notice of appeal. Finally, finds the Madison Circuit Court erred in denying his petition. Remands with instructions for the trial court to grant Fields’ petition.

Ryan Norman Showalter v. State of Indiana (mem. dec.)
Criminal. Affirms the revocation of Ryan Showalter’s community corrections placement and order for him to serve two years of his previously suspended sentence in the Department of Correction. Finds the Marion Superior Court did not abuse its discretion.

Brian P. Cozine v. State of Indiana (mem. dec.)
Criminal. Affirms the denial of Brian P. Cozine’s motion for discharge under Criminal Rule 4(C). Finds the Clark Circuit Court did not err.

N.R. v. State of Indiana (mem. dec.)
Juvenile. Affirms the placement of N.R. in the wardship of the Indiana Department of Correction. Finds there is ample evidence to support the juvenile court’s dispositional order. Also finds the juvenile court did not abuse its discretion by failing to allow him to be placed in his mother’s home under electronic monitoring.

Please enable JavaScript to view this content.

{{ articles_remaining }}
Free {{ article_text }} Remaining
{{ articles_remaining }}
Free {{ article_text }} Remaining Article limit resets in {{ count_down }} days.