A father who feared his hostile relationship with his children’s grandparent guardians would prevent him from having visitation with his kids won a reversal of an order stating parenting time would be “agreed upon by the parties.”
Judgment for a woman who was sent two debt collection notices by email has been affirmed by the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals, which found the emails did not contain statutorily required disclosures.
The following Indiana Supreme Court decisions were filed Wednesday but were not included in Wednesday’s Indiana Lawyer Daily.
Alberto Baiza Rodriguez v. State of Indiana
18S-CR-143
Criminal. Affirms the Elkhart Superior Court’s judgment that it was not authorized to modify Alberto Baiza Rodriguez’s sentence imposed under his fixed-term plea agreement. Finds the decades-old rule regarding sentence modification — that courts may modify a sentence only if the new sentence would not violate the terms of a valid plea agreement had the new sentence been originally imposed — remains undisturbed. Also finds the Legislature’s amendments to Indiana Code § 35-38-1-17 statute did not alter the settled law of Pannarale v. State, 638 N.E.2d 1247 (Ind. 1994), and its progeny.
The estate of a murdered teenage boy could not convince the Indiana Supreme Court that his school was negligent for his death. Instead, justices found the estate’s claims to be barred under contributory negligence law.
A pro se prisoner and serial litigator has been barred from making additional civil filings in the Southern District of Indiana unless he pays nearly $5,000 in filing fees. A judge also raised the possibility of a perjury referral for any future violations.
In upholding a decades-old rule recently codified through a legislative amendment, the Indiana Supreme Court has ruled in companion cases that trial courts can only modify a sentence entered as part of a fixed-plea agreement if the modified sentence would not have violated the plea agreement at the time the sentence was originally imposed.
The following 7th Circuit Court of Appeals opinion was posted after IL deadline Tuesday.
Eric Mapes v. State of Indiana
19-1384
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Indiana, Indianapolis Division. Chief Judge Jane Magnus-Stinson.
Civil. Affirms the Southern District Court’s refusal to recruit pro bono counsel for Eric Mapes. Finds the district judge did not abuse her discretion when she denied Mapes request for pro bono counsel, provided an opportunity to amend, and offered instructions on how best to do so without a lawyer.
A judge sitting on a medical malpractice case who denied for-cause challenges to six jurors did not abuse his discretion in denying the challenges, the Indiana Court of Appeals has ruled, pointing to the “substantial discretion” trial court judges have over voir dire.
Read Indiana appellate court decisions from the most recent reporting period.
Indiana Court of Appeals
A S v. R E, et al.
19A-AD-00240
Adoption. Affirms the Morgan Superior Court’s decree of adoption filed by grandparents R.S.E. and R.K.E. to adopt their minor grandchild C.A.H. against father A.C.S.’s wishes. Finds the trial court did not err in finding that father’s consent to the adoption was irrevocably implied pursuant to Indiana Code section 31-19-10-1.2(g) because he failed to appear for the final hearing. Chief Judge Nancy Vaidik dissents with separate opinion.
The following 7th Circuit Court of Appeals opinion was posted after IL Deadline Wednesday.
Tara Crump v. Andrew M. Saul
18-3491
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Indiana, South Bend Division. Judge Philip P. Simon.
Civil. Vacates the Northern District Court’s affirmation of an administrative law judge’s denial of disability benefits for Tara Crump. Finds the ALJ did not adequately account for Crump’s difficulties with concentration, persistence or pace in the workplace. Remands to the Social Security Administration.
A man’s permission to build a concrete wall on his northern Indiana lakefront property has been halted now that the Indiana Court of Appeals has reversed a trial court’s reversal of his denied application.
A Fort Wayne car dealership lost its appeal of a small-claims case against a woman who won a judgment arguing the dealership fraudulently sold her a car and forged her signature on transaction documents related to the sale.
A bipolar woman’s application for disability benefits will be reconsidered after the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals concluded an administrative law judge failed to consider her treating psychiatrist’s opinions in its denial.
The following 7th Circuit Court opinion was posted after IL deadline Tuesday.
USA v. Douglas Jackson
15-3693
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Indiana, South Bend Division. Judge Robert L. Miller, Jr.
Criminal. Vacates Douglas Jackson’s and Antwon Jenkins’ conviction of using or carrying a firearm to commit a federal crime of violence and remands for resentencing. Finds §924(c)(3)(B) is unconstitutionally vague pursuant to the United States Supreme Court’s ruling in light of its decision in Sessions v. Dimaya, 138 S. Ct. 1204 (2018).
A military veteran ordered to pay his ex-wife lost pension benefits after he opted to receive combat-related service compensation has lost his appeal of a partial denial of his motion to vacate judgment.
A man who was convicted of domestic battery after being denied his request for a public defender has failed to convince the Indiana Court of Appeals that his 11th-hour request for counsel should have been granted.
A woman’s conviction for dealing meth were upheld after the Indiana Court of Appeals found no issue with comments made by the Franklin County prosecutor in response to allegations of forum shopping raised by defense counsel.
Deficiencies in a pro se prisoner’s appellate filings have once again prevented the Indiana Court of Appeals from considering the man’s argument against an unfavorable trial court judgment.
The 7th Circuit Court of Appeals will stick with its initial decision to vacate and remand two men’s sentences after the United States Supreme Court concluded that the definition of “crime of violence” in 18 U.S.C. § 924(c)(3)(B) was unconstitutionally vague.