Court opinions

Indiana Court of Appeals
Timothy Marcus Mayberry v. State of Indiana (mem. dec.)
20A-CR-158
Criminal. Affirms Timothy Mayberry’s murder conviction and an enhancement for the use of a firearm in the commission of a felony. Finds that because Mayberry has not shown any deliberate conduct of bad faith by the state or substantial prejudice to his rights, his argument fails. Thus, finds that the St. Joseph Superior Court was well within its discretion in allowing Officer Ray Wolfenbarger’s testimony.

Indiana Court of Appeals
Delangley Woods v. State of Indiana (mem. dec.)
20A-MI-1149
Miscellaneous. Affirms the Marion Superior Court’s order awarding $12,064 to the state against Delangley Woods on the state’s complaint for civil forfeiture after a bench trial. Finds the trial court did not err when it awarded the cash to the state on its forfeiture complaint.

The following Indiana Tax Court opinion was posted after IL Daily deadline Thursday:
Lowe’s Home Centers, Inc. v. Monroe County Assessor
19T-TA-17
Tax. Affirms the Indiana Board of Tax Review’s final determinations establishing the assessed values of Lowe’s Home Centers store in Bloomington for the 2014-2017 tax years. Rejects Lowe’s contention that the Indiana Board erred in rejecting its sales comparison approach and income approach valuations and in excluding the obsolescence depreciation adjustments from its cost approach valuations.

Indiana Court of Appeals
Javan D. Brown v. State of Indiana
20A-CR-125
Criminal. Affirms Javan Brown’s aggregate 6½-year conviction for Level 5 felony reckless homicide and Class A misdemeanor dangerous possession of a firearm. Finds that Brown’s argument that the LaPorte Superior Court erred by excluding his mother from the courtroom fails. Also finds that the trial court did not err by allowing the jury to examine and pull the trigger on the firearm during deliberations. Finds the evidence is sufficient to sustain Brown’s conviction for reckless homicide, and finds both convictions do not constitute double jeopardy. Finds his sentence is not inappropriate and the trial court did not abuse its discretion in sentencing him.

Indiana Court of Appeals
McGraw Property Solutions, LLC v. Jason Jenkins 
20A-PL-00630
Civil plenary. Affirms the Boone Superior Court’s summary judgment in favor of Jason Jenkins against McGraw Property Solutions, concluding that Jenkins timely cancelled a storm repair contract within three days of acceptance.

The following Indiana Supreme Court opinion was posted after IL Daily deadline Monday:
K.C.G. v. State of Indiana
20S-JV-263
Juvenile. Vacates K.C.G.’s delinquency adjudication and the modification of his probation based on that adjudication in Marion Superior Court. Remands with instructions to dismiss the State’s petition, finding the juvenile court lacked jurisdiction because the offense of dangerous possession of a firearm can never be committed by an adult.

Indiana Court of Appeals

Robert James Plato, Jr. v. State of Indiana (mem. dec.)

20A-CR-475

Criminal. Affirms the Madison Circuit Court’s revocation of Robert Plato Jr.’s probation and order that he serve the four years of his previously suspended sentence. Finds the trial court did not abuse its discretion.

Indiana Court of Appeals
R.W. v. J.W.
19A-PO-02697
Protective order. Affirms the issuance of a permanent protective order against Rafer Weigel and the Porter Superior Court’s denial of his motion to dismiss the petition for an order of protection. Finds the trial court did not err by failing to transfer J.W.’s petition to Illinois and did not err by finding and concluding that sufficient evidence existed to support issuing a permanent order of protection in favor of J.W. Judge Terry Crone concurs in a separate opinion, arguing Weigel’s identity should not be hidden from the public.

Indiana Court of Appeals
Michael D. Williams v. State of Indiana
20A-CR-1209
Criminal. Reverses Michael Williams’ conviction in Wayne Superior Court of misdemeanor theft after he found and took money left at a grocery-store self-checkout station by a previous customer. Finds that Williams’ conduct does not constitute theft under the existing theft statute.