Opinions April 12, 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

Superior Oil Company, Inc., d/b/a Superior Solvents and Chemicals, Inc. v. Samantha M. Labno-Fritchley, individually; as next friend of Penelope Rose Fritchley, a minor; and as personal representative of the estate of John Henry Fritchley II, deceased
22A-CT-1595
Civil tort. Reverses the denial of Superior Solvents and Chemicals Inc.’s motion for summary judgment on Samantha M. Labno-Fritchley’s suit alleging negligence, violations of the Indiana Products Liability Act, negligent infliction of emotional distress and wrongful death. Finds the designated evidence establishes two affirmative defenses to a claim made pursuant to the IPLA. Remands for further proceedings.

Evansville Automotive, LLC, d/b/a Kenny Kent Toyota v. Samantha M. Labno-Fritchley, individually; as next friend of Penelope Rose Fritchley, a minor; and as personal representative of the estate of John Henry Fritchley II, deceased
22A-CT-1601
Civil tort. Reverses the denial of Kenny Kent Toyota’s motion for summary judgment on Samantha M. Labno-Fritchley’s suit alleging negligence, violations of the Indiana Products Liability Act, negligent infliction of emotional distress and wrongful death. Finds the IPLA does not apply. Also finds that the designated evidence establishes that John Fritchley was more than 50% at fault as a matter of law. Remands with instructions to enter summary judgment in favor of Kenny Kent.

Darrell Scott Durham v. State of Indiana (mem. dec.)
22A-CR-872
Criminal. Affirms Darrell S. Durham’s convictions of Level 4 felony possession of a firearm by a serious violent felon, Level 5 felony domestic battery by means of a deadly weapon, Level 6 felony domestic battery and Level 6 felony pointing a firearm, and his nine-year sentence. Finds the admission of Exhibit 24, a no-contact order, was, at most, harmless error. Also finds the state’s closing arguments did not amount to fundamental error. Finally, finds the Marion Superior Court relied on proper aggravators in sentencing Durham.

Shawn J. Vernon Riggle v. State of Indiana (mem. dec.)
22A-CR-1529
Criminal. Affirms Shawn J. Vernon Riggle’s three-year sentence for Level 5 felony operating a motor vehicle after forfeiture of his license for life. Finds the sentence was not inappropriate in light of Riggle’s offense or his character.

Brian Marshall v. State of Indiana (mem. dec.)
22A-CR-2194
Criminal. Affirms Brian Marshall’s seven-year sentence for Level 4 felony sexual battery. Finds the sentence is not inappropriate.

Nathaniel Baker v. State of Indiana (mem. dec.)
22A-CR-2612
Criminal. Affirms and reverses in part the revocation of Nathaniel Baker’s probation and the order that he pay $9,500 in electronic monitoring fees. Finds the evidence presented at the probation revocation hearing establishes by a preponderance of the evidence that Baker was not truthful with the probation department. Also finds the record is not clear on whether the $9,500 applies to time Baker already served on probation or whether the fees apply to the term of probation that has been terminated. Remands for the Marion Superior Court to determine the nature of the fees.

Alexandria J. Calabresi v. State of Indiana (mem. dec.)
22A-CR-2767
Criminal. Affirms Alexandria J. Calabresi’s conviction of Class A misdemeanor invasion of privacy. Finds the evidence was sufficient to support the conviction.

Richard L. Beavers v. State of Indiana (mem. dec.)
22A-CR-2770
Criminal. Affirms the revocation of Richard Beavers’ community corrections placement after he pleaded guilty to a third count of Level 6 felony public indecency and his 1,640-day sentence, with credit for 324 days of time served. Finds the Marion Superior Court did not fail to adequately inform Beavers of his rights, specifically his right to a hearing on the revocation petition. Also finds the trial court did not abuse its sentencing discretion in its consideration of mitigators. Finally, finds Beavers’ sentence is not inappropriate.

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 }}