Subscriber Benefit
As a subscriber you can listen to articles at work, in the car, or while you work out. Subscribe NowIndiana Court of Appeals
Jason Michael Gibson v. State of Indiana
18A-CR-743
Criminal. Affirms Jason Michael Gibson’s convictions of robbery and conspiracy to commit robbery, both as Level 3 felonies and his sentence to an aggregate of 17 years. Finds the St. Joseph Superior Court did not commit fundamental error when it entered judgment of conviction for conspiracy to commit robbery, and his convictions do not violate double jeopardy principles. Also finds the trial court did not abuse its discretion when it admitted into evidence Gibson’s inculpatory statements to police and the evidence was sufficient to support Gibson’s conspiracy conviction. Finally, finds Gibson failed to show that the trial court abused its discretion when it sentenced him.
Jimmy Joe Small v. State of Indiana
18A-CR-773
Criminal. Reverses Jimmy Joe Small’s conviction of unlawful possession of a firearm by a serious violent felon as a Level 4 felony. Finds the Vanderburgh Circuit Court abused its discretion by granting the state’s motion for a continuance. Remands the case to the trial court to discharge in accordance with the Indiana Court of Appeals’ opinion.
Richard Clifton v. James E. Wright (mem. dec.)
18A-CC-88
Civil collection. Affirms the $5,984 judgment in favor of James E. Wright. Finds the Jay Superior Court’s judgment was not clearly erroneous.
Mary Adamowicz, individually and in her capacity as guardian for Lilly Adamowicz and Lilly Adamowicz, by next friend Mary Adamowicz v. Anonymous, M.D., et al. (mem. dec.)
18A-MI-742
Miscellaneous. Affirms the order for Mary Adamowicz, on behalf of her minor daughter Lilly, to pay attorneys’ fees to Anonymous, M.D. and Anonymous Organization, Inc., d/b/a Anonymous OB/GYN, LLC following Adamowicz’s noncompliance with the provider’s discovery requests while she had a proposed medical malpractice complaint pending before a medical review panel. Finds the Bartholomew Circuit Court's judgment for the provider was not clearly erroneous because Adamowicz did not timely seek a protective order in accordance with the Trial Rules.
Please enable JavaScript to view this content.