Opinions March 8, 2022

The following 7^th Circuit Court of Appeals opinion was posted after IL deadline Monday:
James Burkhart v. United States of America
21-2009
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Indiana, Indianapolis Division
Chief Judge Tanya Walton Pratt.
Civil. Affirms the Southern Indiana District Court’s conclusion that Barnes & Thornburg’s conflict of interest did not adversely affect its representation of former American Senior Communities CEO James Burkhart. Agrees with the district court that even though the law firm had long represented the Health & Hospital Corp. of Marion County which was a victim of Burkhart’s kickback scheme, the firm still provided a robust defense. Finds the district court did not err in concluding that an attempt to impeach Matthew Gutwein, HHC’s CEO, by implicating HHC in another potentially fraudulent scheme was not a plausible alternative strategy. Also finds the district court did not err by finding Barnes & Thornburg was prepared to present a mens rea defense. Finally, finds the district court did not err by concluding Barnes & Thornburg prepared itself to vigorously cross-examine Gutwein. Sees not abuse of discretion in the district court’s denial of an evidentiary hearing.

Tuesday opinions
Indiana Supreme Court
Solarize Indiana, Inc. v. Southern Indiana Gas and Electric Co., d/b/a Vectren Energy Delivery of Indiana, Inc., et al.
21S-EX-236
Agency action. Dismisses Solarize Indiana Inc.’s appeal seeking judicial review of the Indiana Utility Regulatory Commission’s order approving two filings submitted by Vectren Energy Delivery of Indiana Inc. under an expedited process known as the Thirty-Day Rule. Finds Solarize has not shown that it was adversely affected by the IURC order, so it lacks standing. Justice Geoffrey Slaughter concurs in part and in the judgment with separate opinion.

Court of Appeals of Indiana
Jess David Woods v. State of Indiana (mem. dec.)
21A-PC-1447
Post-conviction relief. Affirms the Delaware Circuit Court’s denial of a petition for post-conviction relief filed by convicted murderer Jess David Woods. Finds Woods has not proven his trial counsel was ineffective on any of his four alleged grounds, and even if his counsel was ineffective, he has not shown prejudice. Also finds the evidence of Woods’ guilt is overwhelming. Finally, finds Woods also hasn’t shown the outcome of his trial would’ve been different had his trial counsel mitigated his alleged hearing impairment.

Anthony Wolfe II v. State of Indiana (mem. dec.)
21A-CR-1839
Criminal. Affirms Anthony Wolfe’s convictions of felony murder, Level 6 felony abuse of a corpse and Level 6 felony obstruction of justice. Finds the Warrick Circuit Court did not abuse its discretion when it refused to give Wolfe’s proffered final jury instruction regarding a reasonable theory of innocence. Also finds the trial court did not abuse its discretion when it admitted video clips of surveillance footage, and even if the admission was erroneous, it was harmless because the challenged evidence was cumulative of Wolfe’s own admissions. Finally, the jury’s verdicts were supported by sufficient evidence.

Narion Lattimore v. M.H. and K.L-H. (mem. dec.)
21A-PO-1992
Order of protection. Affirms the protective order in favor of K.L-H. before reverses the protective order in favor of M.H. Finds Narion Lattimore demonstrated, prima facie, that the Tippecanoe Superior Court erred in granting the protective order in favor of M.H. because it was unsupported by sufficient evidence. Also finds K-L.H.’s testimony was sufficient to conclude a reasonable person in her situation would feel terrorized, frightened, intimidated or threatened by Lattimore’s harassment.

AWP Inc. v. Security Self Storage LLC (mem. dec.)
21A-PL-1993
Civil plenary. Affirms the Miami Superior Court’s ruling that AWP Inc. violated a commercial lease with Security Self Storage LLC and the award of $69,078.11 in damages. Finds the trial court did not err when it found Security properly mitigated its damages. Also finds the trial court did not err in its award of attorney fees. Orders the trial court to correct its order to reflect the proper amount of damages.