Opinions April 28, 2022

The following opinions were published after IL deadline on Wednesday:
7^th Circuit Court of Appeals
United States of America v. Lajuan Fitzpatrick
21-1286
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Indiana, Hammond Division. Judge Phillip P. Simon.
Criminal. Affirms Lajuan Fitzpatrick’s convictions of conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute marijuana and carrying, using and discharging a firearm in relation to a drug trafficking crime resulting in killing defined as murder, and his 36-year sentence. Finds Fitzpatrick’s role in the robbery was more violent than his co-conspirators. Also finds the evidence is sufficient. Finally, finds Fitzpatrick’s sentence is not unreasonable.

Indiana Supreme Court
Juventino V. Ramirez v. State of Indiana
21S-CR-373
Criminal. Reverses Juvenito V. Ramirez’s conviction of felony child molestation. Finds the Allen Superior Court erred in denying Ramirez’s request for a continuance. Also finds that the errors relating to counsel’s inability to receive a copy of the victim interview do not require reversal. Remands for a new trial.

Thursday opinions
Court of Appeals of Indiana
Maria L. Cole v. Peter G. Cole
21A-MI-2415
Miscellaneous. Reverses the St. Joseph Circuit Court’s determination that Maria Cole’s children, J.M.C. and L.R.C., have their “habitual residency” in the Federal Republic of Germany under the Hague Convention on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction. Finds the trial court erred when it determined the children have their habitual residency in Germany and not in the United States.

Alan Kreilein v. Tracy Berry, et. al (mem. dec.)
21A-PL-862
Civil plenary. Dismisses Alan Kreilein’s appeal of the dismissal of his complaint against the Indiana Department of Correction and the Indiana Parole Board. Finds Kreilein’s motion to reconsider did not toll his deadline for initiating an appeal from the Madison Circuit Court’s order dismissing his complaint. Also finds Kreilein filed his notice of appeal after its deadline.

Lee Evans Dunigan v. Tippecanoe County Public Defender’s Office (mem. dec.)
21A-CT-678
Civil tort. Affirms the denial of a motion to correct error filed by Lee Evans Dunigan after his case against the Tippecanoe County Public Defender’s Office was dismissed for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted and for bringing an action against a defendant who was immune from suit.  Finds the Tippecanoe Circuit Court did not err.

James Arthur Hodge v. State of Indiana (mem. dec.)
21A-CR-1722
Criminal. Affirms James Arthur Hodge’s conviction of Level 5 felony possession of methamphetamine. Finds Hodge has not satisfied his burden on appeal to show that the prosecutor’s remarks constituted fundamental error. Also finds the Marion Superior Court did not commit fundamental error when it did not sua sponte act in response to the prosecutor’s remarks during closing argument.

Thomas J. Jackson v. State of Indiana (mem. dec.)
21A-CR-1880
Criminal. Affirms Thomas J. Jackson’s conviction of murder, enhanced by the use of a firearm, and 85-year sentence. Finds the Allen Superior Court did not commit reversible error in the admission of Peter Long’s statements outside court, nor did it abuse its discretion in rejecting Jackson’s claims of remorse. Alsof finds Jackson’s sentence is not inappropriate in light of the nature of his offense or his character.

In the Matter of the Termination of the Parent Child Relationship of: R.H. (Minor Child) and M.H. (Mother) v. Indiana Department of Child Services (mem dec.)
21A-JT-2070
Juvenile termination of parental rights. Affirms the termination of the parental rights of mother M.H. to child R.H. Finds the Grant County Department of Child Services presented sufficient evidence to support the termination of M.H.’s parental rights.

E.H. v. A.P.  (mem. dec.)
21A-AD-2336
Adoption. Affirms issuance of a decree of adoption of child A.H. on the petition of stepfather A.P. Finds that while the COA does not approve of the procedure employed by the Vanderburgh Superior Court when said that it would hold one hearing on whether the father E.H.’s consent was necessary and, regardless of the outcome of that hearing, a second hearing on the best interests of the child, the trial court’s procedure was not fundamental error. Also finds A.P. presented sufficient evidence to support the decree of adoption.