« Ind. Courts - 130-year-old Posey County Courthouse gets new life | Main | Ind. Gov't. Bill to spare high-fence hunting sure to draw fire [Updated] »

Wednesday, January 18, 2006

Ind. Decisions - Court of Appeals decides 6 today

Robert S. Stewart v. State of Indiana - Sentencing appeal; affirmed.

In M.Q.M. v. State of Indiana, Judge Crone writes:

M.Q.M. appeals from the juvenile court’s dispositional order adjudicating him to be a delinquent child for committing possession of a substance represented to be a controlled substance, a class C misdemeanor if committed by an adult, and auto theft, a class D felony if committed by an adult. We affirm in part, vacate in part, and remand.

In Lucas Outdoor Advertising v. City of Crawfordsville, Judge Baker writes:

The question presented here is whether the Crawfordsville sign ordinance prohibits the placement of advertisement billboards. In a sense, it does. Appellant-petitioner Lucas Outdoor Advertising, LLC (Lucas), appeals the trial court’s judgment upholding a decision in favor of the City of Crawfordsville (City) Board of Zoning Appeals (BZA) regarding the denial of its applications for the placement of a number of billboard signs. Specifically, Lucas claims that the decision denying the applications was arbitrary, capricious, and contrary to law, and that the judgment must be set aside because the BZA had previously granted permits to other applicants under the City’s sign ordinance. Concluding that the decision to deny Lucas’s permit applications for the billboards was proper, we affirm the judgment of the trial court.
In Tiffany Edmonds v. State of Indiana, Judge Kirsch writes:
Based on the conclusion that the trial court abused its discretion when it found Edmonds’s criminal history to be an aggravating circumstance, we choose to exercise our right under Indiana Appellate Rule 7(B) to revise Edmonds’s sentence. We find that the imposition of consecutive sentences was inappropriate, and we revise Edmonds’s sentence and order her sentences of ten years for robbery and ten years for criminal confinement to be served concurrently.
In Marion-Adams School Corporation v. Paula Boone, Judge Crone writes:
The dispositive issue is whether the trial court abused its discretion in awarding Boone attorney’s fees pursuant to Indiana Code Section 5-14-1.5-7(f). * * *

The Corporation contends that “[t]here was no evidence of any future violations, nor any evidence of any threatened violations” of the Open Door Law. We are unable to review the merits of the Corporation’s contention, however, because it chose not to submit a transcript of the evidence with its appeal. It is a cardinal rule of appellate review that the appellant bears the burden of showing reversible error by the record, as all presumptions are in favor of the trial court’s judgment. *** The record before us indicates that the trial court heard evidence that reflected poorly on the Board’s knowledge of and past compliance with the Open Door Law and raised sufficient doubts regarding future compliance to merit an injunction, an admonishment, and remedial tutoring by the public access counselor. Absent a transcript, the Corporation cannot establish that the trial court’s fears are unfounded. We therefore conclude that Boone showed that the filing of her action was necessary to prevent a future violation of the Open Door Law and that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in awarding her attorney’s fees pursuant to Indiana Code Section 5-14-1.5-7(f).

In Tabatha J. Naugle, et al v. Beech Grove City Schools, a 10-page opinion, Judge Baker writes:
Appellants-plaintiffs Tabatha J. Naugle and Sandra M. Cain (collectively, “Employees”) appeal the trial court’s grant of summary judgment in favor of appellee-defendant Beech Grove City Schools (Beech Grove). Specifically, Employees argue that the trial court erred in finding for a number of reasons that Indiana Code section 22-2-5-1, the Wage Payment Statute, did not apply in this case. Finding no support for the argument that “days” as used in the Wage Payment Statute means “business days,” but concluding that the Wage Payment Statute does not apply to Beech Grove under the reasoning in Brownsburg Cmty. Sch. Corp. v. Natare Corp., 824 N.E.2d 336 (Ind. 2005), we affirm the judgment of the trial court.

Posted by Marcia Oddi on January 18, 2006 12:07 PM
Posted to Ind. App.Ct. Decisions