« Courts - Monday is Constitution Day | Main | Ind. Decisions - Transfer list for week ending September 14, 2007 »

Friday, September 14, 2007

Ind. Decisions - Court of Appeals issues 1 today (and 2 NFP)

For publication opinions today (1):

In Eric D. Smith v. State of Indiana, a 7-page opinion, Judge Vaidik writes:

Following our reversal and remand to the trial court, Eric D. Smith (“Smith”), an inmate in the Indiana Department of Correction (“DOC”), now appeals the trial court’s grant of summary judgment in favor of the Maximum Control Facility and DOC employees Daniel R. McBride, Nell Hayes, Pam Bane, and Elaine Zschoche (collectively, “the Defendants”) on his complaint for violation of Indiana’s Access to Public Records Act. Because Smith has not paid for copies of the public records and because he is a prisoner in the DOC, which places restrictions on his ability to inspect the records himself, the Defendants did not violate the Access to Public Records Act by providing Smith with a summary of the records. We therefore affirm the trial court. * * *

Smith’s appeal focuses on his right to inspect the records. See, e.g., Appellant’s Br. p. 5 (“The failure to allow such ‘inspection’ is actionable.”). Smith does not claim that he has paid the statutory copying fee or that he is entitled to a copy of the records at public expense because he is indigent. As for Smith’s right to inspect the records, we point out that his status as a prisoner greatly frustrates this right. Smith is currently incarcerated in the DOC, and at least during one point in these proceedings, he was in punitive segregation. See Appellant’s App. p. 12. Implicit in Indiana Code § 5-14-3-3 is practicality. And at this point in time, it is simply not practicable for Smith either (1) to be brought to the location of the records so that he can inspect them on location or (2) to have the records brought to him in the DOC so that he can inspect them while imprisoned. By providing Smith with a summary of the requested documents, the Defendants have not violated the Access to Public Records Act. We therefore affirm the trial court’s grant of summary judgment in favor of the Defendants.

NFP civil opinions today (1):

In Termination of the Parent-Child Relationship of J.J.; Tony E. Jones v. Elkhart County Department of Child Services (NFP), a 9-page opinion, Judge Bradford writes:

Appellant-Respondent, Tony E. Jones, appeals the juvenile court’s involuntary termination of his parental rights.1 Specifically, Tony E. claims that the Elkhart County Department of Child Services (“ECDCS”) did not present sufficient evidence to prove that termination of his parental rights was justified. Concluding that the evidence was sufficient, we affirm.

The intertwining relationships in the Jones family are most clearly depicted by the diagram below: [ILB - p. 2 contains a chart of the relationships]

NFP criminal opinions today (1):

Robert Grissom v. State of Indiana (NFP)

Posted by Marcia Oddi on September 14, 2007 01:24 PM
Posted to Ind. App.Ct. Decisions