Opinions June 4, 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 Re the Paternity of J.G.; Wendy Sonora Hernandez and Margarito Guzman v. Fredy Sanchez Cortes and State of Indiana
19A-JP-2429
Juvenile paternity. Affirms the denial in Elkhart Superior Court of Wendy Sonora Hernandez’s motion for summary judgment on the state’s action seeking to establish paternity of her child by Fredy Sanchez Cortez. Finds the trial court did not err in its denial, and that mother and husband, Margarito Guzman, have failed to meet their burden on appeal to demonstrate that the court abused its discretion when it dismissed husband as a party to the action. Also finds that mother has failed to demonstrate that she was prejudiced by the trial court’s failure to provide her with explicit notice of its intent to treat her motion to dismiss as a motion for summary judgment. Lastly, holds that the state timely filed its paternity petition and that putative father was not required to register with the putative father registry before the state could file its petition.

Charles B. Eldredge v. Susan M. Ruch
19A-DR-2937
Domestic relations. Affirms the Clinton Circuit Court’s grant of a motion filed by Susan M. Ruch requesting an income withholding order to enforce the court’s earlier order requiring her ex-husband Charles B. Eldredge to pay a portion of his daughter’s post-secondary educational expenses. Finds the trial court did not lack statutory authority to enter an income withholding order to enforce its earlier order requiring father to contribute to daughter’s post-secondary educational expenses. Nor does the trial court’s withholding order run afoul of 15 U.S.C. § 1673.

Russell Edward Allender v. State of Indiana (mem. dec.)
19A-CR-1831
Criminal. Affirms the revocation of Russell Allender’s suspended sentence and participation in Madison County’s Community Corrections Continuum of Sanctions program. Finds the Madison Circuit Court’s sanction ordering him to serve the balance of his sentence in the DOC was not an abuse of discretion.

In the Matter of the Guardianship of S.S. (Minor Child); Daniel Ephrom Brock v. Gregory M. Sullivan and Mary J. Sullivan (mem. dec.)
19A-GU-2776
Guardianship. Reverses the grant of a motion to correct error filed by Gregory M. Sullivan and Mary J. Sullivan. Finds the trial court abused its discretion when it granted maternal grandparents’ motion to correct error after noting that they did not object to Daniel Brock’s intervention and then invited any error in allowing Brock visitation with S.S. Reverses that order and reinstates the trial court’s September 4, 2019, order allowing Brock to continue with interim parenting time, among other things.

Stephen Hays Sanner v. Veronica Louise Brown (mem. dec.)
19A-DR-1843
Domestic relation. Affirms in part, reverses in part, remands. Finds that Stephen Sanner has not met his burden of showing the trial court abused its discretion in its division of the marital estate he shared with Veronica Brown. Instructs on remand trial court to value Stephen’s 401(a) account at $46,155.57 and revise the equalization payment owed by Stephen accordingly.

Corey Heidorn v. State of Indiana (mem. dec.)
19A-CR-2902
Criminal. Affirms Corey Heidron’s conviction of two counts of Level 4 felony burglary of a dwelling. Concludes that the trial court did not abuse its discretion when it failed to credit Heidorn’s proffered mitigators and that Heidorn’s sentence is not inappropriate given the nature of his offenses and his character.

Jeremy Wall v. State of Indiana (mem. dec.)
20A-CR-19
Criminal. Affirms Jeremy Wall’s aggregate 22-year sentence for conviction of Level 2 felony dealing in methamphetamine and Level 6 felony resisting law enforcement. Finds his sentence is not inappropriate in light of the nature of the offense and the character of the offender.

In the Matter of the Termination of the Parent-Child Relationship of O.A. (Minor Child) and Z.O. (Father); Z.O. (Father) v. Indiana Department of Child Services (mem. dec.)
19A-JT-2788
Juvenile termination. Affirms the involuntary termination of Z.O.’s parental rights to O.O. Finds the trial court’s findings support its conclusions that the conditions under which child was removed would not be remedied and that termination of father’s parental rights was in child’s best interests.

William Stillwell and Penelope Stillwell v. Cohen & Malad LLP, Irwin B. Levin, Gregory L. Laker, Daniel S. Chamberlain, and Does 1 through 7, inclusive (mem. dec.)
19A-CT-2814
Civil tort. Affirms the trial court grant of Cohen & Malad, LLP, Irwin Levin, Gregory Laker, and Daniel Chamberlain’s motion for judgment on the pleadings after William and Penelope Stillwell filed a legal malpractice lawsuit against them. Concludes the trial court did not err because the Stillwells’ claims are barred by the statute of limitations.

Samtwan Hobby v. State of Indiana (mem. dec.)
19A-CR-765
Juvenile paternity. Affirms Samtwan Hobby’s convictions for one count of Level 4 felony dealing in cocaine and two counts of Level 5 felony dealing in cocaine. Finds the trial court did not abuse its discretion in limiting Hobby’s questions about Matthew Whitt and the corrective action request because such questions were not relevant to whether Hobby sold cocaine to a confidential informant and would have unfairly prejudiced the state.

Corissa Rose Halcomb v. Ethan Barrow (mem. dec.)
19A-JP-2897
Juvenile paternity. Affirms the trial court’s order clarifying parenting time in favor of Ethan Barrow brought by Corrisa Halcomb. Finds the trial court did not abuse its discretion.

Kenneth Garretson v. State of Indiana (mem. dec.)
19A-CR-2750
Criminal. Affirms Kenneth Garretson’s conviction for Level 4 felony possession of methamphetamine and his admission as being a habitual offender. Concludes that the trial court did not abuse its discretion when it admitted the challenged evidence at trial or when it identified and weighed the mitigating circumstances at sentencing.

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 }}