Subscriber Benefit
As a subscriber you can listen to articles at work, in the car, or while you work out. Subscribe Now
The Indiana Supreme Court denied 12 transfers for the week ending Aug. 9.
Among the cases denied transfer included a Shelby County man seeking additional educational credit time.
In Steven C. Clear v. State of Indiana, 24A-CR-170, the Indiana Court of Appeals affirmed Clear’s conviction of a Level 5 felony operating a vehicle while intoxicated and his 11-year prison sentence.
According to court records, on May 30, 2018, after having been convicted of Level 5 felony OWI, Clear was sentenced to an 11-year term of incarceration.
On Jan. 16, 2024, Clear petitioned for additional credit time. In his petition, Clear asserted that he had successfully completed “the Last Mile vocational education program” and was therefore entitled to additional educational credit time pursuant to Indiana Code section 35-50-6-3.3(b).
The Shelby Superior Court denied his petition.
In affirming the lower court’s judgment, the appellate court ruled that Clear had not exhausted his administrative remedies and had failed to convince the court that the trial court erred in denying his petition as the evidence did not lead unerringly and unmistakably to a decision opposite that reached by the trial court.
Another case involved a woman that filed a negligence claim against a Lake County hospital.
In Martha Espinoza v. St. Mary Medical Center, Inc., 23A-CT-1204, Espinoza tripped and fell on two overlapped floor mats while accompanying her grandson to his appointment at St. Mary Medical Center.
According to court records, Espinoza filed a negligence claim against the medical center, arguing that it was liable for her injuries.
At trial, the hospital obtained judgment on the evidence after Espinoza failed to prove during her case-in-chief that the medical center had actual or constructive knowledge of the hazard.
Espinoza repeated her negligence claim in a motion to correct errors while also arguing that the trial judge should have recused himself because his son worked for the law firm representing the medical center.
The trial court rejected Espinoza’s motion.
The appellate court affirmed, finding the trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying Espinoza’s motion to correct error.
All justices concurred in the transfer denials.
Please enable JavaScript to view this content.