« Law - Obtaining a license to practice law in California is hard | Main | Ind. Decisions - Supreme Court decides one today »

Tuesday, February 21, 2006

Ind. Decisions - Court of Appeals decides three today

In Andre Elijah Edwards v. State of Indiana, an 11-page opinion, Judge Baker writes:

Appellant-defendant Andre E. Edwards appeals the propriety of the fifteen-year sentence that was imposed following his guilty plea to Neglect of a Dependent, a class B felony. Edwards claims that he should not be foreclosed from challenging his sentence even though he decided to plead guilty. In essence, Edwards maintains that while the written plea agreement he signed indicated a fifteen-year sentencing “cap,” the trial court still had discretion to decide the precise sentence that should be imposed. Edwards further maintains that his sentence must be set aside because the trial court improperly considered the victim’s age as an aggravating circumstance.

We conclude that Edwards is precluded from challenging the appropriateness of the sentence under Indiana Appellate Rule 7(B) because he was sentenced in accordance with the agreed-upon penalty range that was set forth in the plea agreement. However, we also find that Edwards may challenge the propriety of the aggravating circumstances that were found. In considering this challenge, we conclude that the trial court properly considered the victim’s age to be an aggravating factor. We also note that while one of the other aggravators was improper, the remaining two were valid and could be used to enhance Edwards’s sentence. Thus, we affirm the judgment of the trial court.

In Mary Beck, et al v. City of Evansville, et al, a 16-page opinion, Judge Baker writes:
This litigation arose as the result of extraordinary rainfall and flooding that occurred in certain Evansville neighborhoods during the summers of 2003 and 2004. Plaintiffs-appellants Mary Beck, et al. (the homeowners) appeal the trial court’s grant of summary judgment in favor of the appellees-defendants, the City of Evansville, et al. (the City) with regard to their claim against the City for negligence, nuisance, and inverse condemnation, following flood damage to their residences in 2003 and 2004. Specifically, the homeowners argue that the trial court erred in finding that the City was immune from liability on their negligence and nuisance claims and in determining that there had been no taking of their property for purposes of inverse condemnation. Finding that the trial court properly granted the City’s motion for summary judgment based on governmental immunity, and further concluding that the homeowners failed to establish as a matter of law that any taking of their property occurred with respect to their inverse condemnation claim, we affirm the judgment of the trial court.
In Quaker Properties, Inc. v. Dept. of Unsafe Buildings of the City of Greendale, In., a 10-page opinion, Judge Baker writes:
Appellant-plaintiff Quaker Properties, Inc. (Quaker) appeals the trial court’s dismissal of its petition for judicial review against the appellee-defendant Department of Unsafe Buildings of the City of Greendale (the City), as well as the judgment that was awarded to the City for the repairs and modifications it made to Quaker’s building. Concluding that Quaker did not file its petition for judicial review in a timely manner, and further finding that the judgment was appropriately entered for the City, we affirm the judgment of the trial court.

Posted by Marcia Oddi on February 21, 2006 11:43 AM
Posted to Ind. App.Ct. Decisions