Articles

Opinions May 9, 2023

Court of Appeals of Indiana
Michael J. Stolla v. Megan Gould (mem. dec.)
22A-JP-1740
Juvenile paternity. Affirms the Dearborn Circuit Court’s judgment modifying legal and physical custody over minor son, M.J.S., in favor of Megan Gould. Finds the trial court did not abuse its discretion when it overruled Michael J. Stolla’s objection to considering a modification of custody based only on Gould’s failure to file a modification petition. Also finds the trial court’s decision to modify the parties’ legal and physical custody over M.J.S. is well-supported by the record.

Read More

Opinions May 8, 2023

Devun York v. State of Indiana
22A-CR-02214
Criminal. Affirms Marion Superior Court’s denial of Devun York’s motion to dismiss a charge which alleged he was in possession of a machine gun in violation of Indiana Code section 35-47-5-8(2014). Finds the trial court did not err by concluding that the facts of the case state a crime or by concluding that the machine gun statute is not impermissibly vague under the federal and state constitutions.

Read More

Opinions May 5, 2023

Leroy N. Ingram v. T.J. Watson, et al.
21-3400
Appeal from the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Indiana, Terre Haute Division. Judge Frank Easterbrook.
Civil. Affirms the district court decision. Reverses the grievance directed to the asserted physical attack. Remands for further proceedings.

Read More

Opinions May 4, 2023

Court of Appeals of Indiana
MLS Enterprises, LLC v. Adam R. Norman and Matthew A. Norman
22A-PL-2755
Civil plenary. Affirms the Lawrence Circuit Court’s grant of partial summary judgment to Adam and Matthew Norman. Finds the trial court did not abuse its discretion in the admission of designated evidentiary materials. Also finds the Normans are entitled to summary judgment on an adverse possession claim.

Read More

Opinions May 3, 2023

Indiana Supreme Court
Matthew H. Thomas Davis v. State of Indiana
22S-CR-253
Criminal. Dismisses Matthew H. Thomas Davis’ sentencing appeal. Finds his written plea agreement with the state unambiguously waived his right to appeal his sentence. Justice Christopher Goff dissents with separate opinion, joined by Chief Justice Loretta Rush.

Read More

Opinions May 2, 2023

The following 7th Circuit Court of Appeals opinion was posted after IL deadline on Monday:
United States of America v. William G. Curtis
21-2615
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Indiana, Hammond Division. Senior Judge James T. Moody.
Criminal. Affirms the district court’s decision to refuse consideration of resentencing William G. Curtis for firearms-related sentences under the Fair Step Act. Finds a district court does have authority under the act to reduce an aggregate sentence, even if part of the sentence rests on offenses that are not covered by the act nor grouped with a covered offense. Also finds the district court’s error in assuming it lacked authority was harmless. Finally, finds Curtis’ consecutive sentences for firearms-related convictions were distinct and disaggregated from his drug conspiracy-related sentences.

Read More

Opinions May 1, 2023

Court of Appeals of Indiana
Ty Evans v. State of Indiana
22A-PC-220
Post-conviction relief.  Reverses the post-conviction court’s denial of relief to Ty Evans and remands to the court with instructions to issue an amended abstract of judgment consistent with the opinion. Finds Evans demonstrated that he was not a habitual offender under the laws of the state and that his two convictions did not in fact occur in the required order.

Read More

Opinions April 28, 2023

Court of Appeals of Indiana
Matthew G. Cranfill, as Personal Representative of the Estate of Josephine F. Cranfill, Deceased v. State of Indiana Department of Transportation
22A-CT-2062
Civil tort. Affirms the Putnam Circuit Court’s grant of summary judgment in favor of the Indiana Department of Transportation. Finds the department’s failure to lower the speed limit on State Rode 267 involved the “adoption and enforcement of or failure to adopt or enforce” a rule and/or regulation, so under the Indiana Tort Claims Act, the department is immune from liability from Cranfill’s claims.

Read More