Opinions March 31, 2023

  • 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

Court of Appeals of Indiana
Adam Tempest v. Fifth Third Bank, National Association (mem. dec.)
22A-PL-2222
Civil plenary. Dismisses Adam Tempest’s appeal of the Decatur Superior Court’s order dismissing his complaint against Fifth Third Bank. Finds multiple violations of the Indiana Appellate Rules and a lack of a cogent argument.

Charles T. Langley, Jr. v. State of Indiana (mem. dec.)
22A-CR-2730
Criminal. Affirms Charles Langley’s two-year sentence for operating a vehicle after a lifetime suspension, a Level 5 felony. Finds Langley has not sustained his burden of establishing that his sentence is inappropriate in light of the nature of the offense and his character.

Reuben W. Ginns v. State of Indiana (mem. dec.)
22A-CR-2011
Criminal. Affirms Reuben Ginns’ convictions of two counts of child molesting as Level 1 felonies and Level 5 felony criminal confinement. Finds evidence of probative value was presented from which a reasonable jury could find beyond a reasonable doubt that Ginns did commit the crimes he’s convicted of.

Joshua W. Rowley v. State of Indiana (mem. dec.)
22A-CR-2688
Criminal. Affirms Joshua Rowley’s sentence to an aggregate of 22 years for aggravated battery as a Level 3 felony and Level 5 felony battery resulting in bodily injury to a public safety official. Finds Rowley has not sustained his burden of establishing his sentence is inappropriate in light of the nature of the offenses and his character.

T.R. v. State of Indiana (mem. dec.)
22A-JV-2309
Juvenile. Affirms T.R.’s placement in the Department of Correction for four acts that would be Level 6 felony auto theft if committed by an adult. Finds the juvenile court did not abuse its discretion in finding that commitment to the DOC was the least restrictive disposition consistent with T.R.’s best interests and the safety of the community at large. Also finds the juvenile court’s order satisfied Indiana Code § 31-37-18-9(a).

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 }}