Opinions April 4, 2018

The following 7th Circuit Court of Appeals decision was posted after IL deadline Tuesday:
LeeAnn Brock-Miller v. United States of America
16-3050
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Indiana, Indianapolis Division. Judge Sarah Evans Barker.
Civil. Reverses the denial of LeeAnn Brock-Miller’s motion under 28 USC section 2255 challenging her conviction of conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute heroin. Finds Brock-Miller’s 2008 conviction did not qualify as a felony drug offense subjecting her to a recidivist enhancement. Also finds Brock-Miller has presented sufficient evidence to justify a hearing on both deficient performance and prejudice under Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (1984). Remands for a hearing on Brock-Miller’s motion.

Wednesday opinions
Indiana Court of Appeals
Great Lakes Anesthesia, P.C. v. Kyle O'Bryan and Megan O'Bryan
27A02-1708-CT-1956
Civil tort. Affirms the denial of Great Lakes Anesthesia, P.C.’s motion for a preliminary injunction to restrain former employees Kyle and Megan O’Bryan from performing nurse-anesthesia services for Associated Anesthesiologists of Fort Wayne pending resolution of litigation. Finds the Grant Circuit Court’s findings are supported by the evidence and support its conclusion to deny injunctive relief.
 
Professional Billing, Inc. v. Zotec Partners, LLC, and Medical Management Professionals, LLC
49A02-1709-PL-2219
Civil plenary. Reverses the denial of Professional Billing, Inc.’s motion to dismiss the claims filed against it by Zotec Partners, LLC and Medical Management Professionals, LLC. Finds Indiana cannot assert personal jurisdiction over PBI. Also finds additional time for discovery is unwarranted. Remands with instructions to dismiss Zotec’s claims against PBI.

Edward Ivy v. State of Indiana
82A04-1711-PC-2506
Post-conviction. Reverses the denial of Edward Ivy’s petition for post-conviction relief and vacates his attempted murder conviction. Finds Ivy received ineffective assistance of trial counsel. Remands for further proceedings. Judge Patricia Riley dissents with separate opinion.

Lakesha L. Norington v. State of Indiana (mem. dec.)
33A04-1709-MI-2290
Miscellaneous. Affirms the dismissal of Lakesha Norington’s writ of mandamus due to her failure to pay a partial filing fee of $1.67. Finds Norington failed to establish the dismissal was improper.

Central States Tower III, LLC, a/k/a Central States Tower v. Plan Commission of the City of Portage (mem. dec.)
64A04-1710-CC-2400
Civil collection. Affirms the denial of relief on Central States Tower III, LLC’s petition for judicial review of the Portage Plan Commission’s denial of CST’s site plan proposal for construction of a telecommunications tower. Finds the Porter Superior Court did not err.

Mark A. Rittenhouse v. Rosetta D. Rittenhouse (mem. dec.)
60A04-1708-DR-1840
Domestic relation. Affirms the division of marital assets between Mark A. and Rosetta D. Rittenhouse. Finds Mark Rittenhouse has not demonstrated the Owen Circuit Court abused its discretion when it assigned 30 percent of marital assets remaining after his pensions were set aside to Rosetta.

Todd A. Dillon v. State of Indiana (mem. dec.)
24A01-1707-CR-1470
Criminal. Affirms Todd Dillon’s conviction of Level 2 felony dealing in methamphetamine. Finds the Franklin Circuit Court did not err in the admission of evidence and testimony.
 
Joshua T. Trammell v. State of Indiana (mem. dec.)
24A01-1705-CR-1103
Criminal. Affirms Joshua T. Trammell’s three-year sentence for his conviction of Class D felony theft. Finds the Franklin Circuit Court did not abuse its discretion when it did not consider certain factors to be mitigators. Also finds Trammell has not demonstrated his sentence is inappropriate in light of his character and offense.
 
In the Matter of the Involuntary Termination of the Parent-Child Relationship of V.G. (Minor Child), A.G. (Mother) and R.L. (Father) v. Indiana Department of Child Services (mem. dec.)
09A05-1711-JT-2573
Juvenile termination of parental rights. Affirms the termination of A.G. and R.L.’s parental rights to their child, V.G. Finds there is sufficient evidence to support the Cass Circuit Court’s conclusion that there is a reasonable probability that the continuation of the parent-child relationship poses a threat to V.G.’s well-being.