« Courts - More on: "Mistrial by iPhone: Juries’ Web Research Upends Trials" | Main | Courts - "Should We Have Professional Juries?" »

Monday, March 23, 2009

Ind. Decisions - Court of Appeals issues 1 today (and 3 NFP)

For publication opinions today (1):

In Re: The Termination of the Parent-Child Rel. of I.A., Lavonne Aikens v. Indiana Dept. of Child Svcs. is a 17-page opinion by Judge Vaidik. Here is Judge Vaidik's case summary:

Lavonne Aikens ("Mother") appeals the termination of her parental rights to her son, I.A., who was almost two years old at the time of the termination hearing, had never been in her care, and has many medical needs. In the same proceeding that the trial court terminated Mother’s parental rights to I.A., however, the court did not terminate Mother’s parental rights to four of her older children, M.H., Z.A., D.A., and J.A. This case presents a most unusual circumstance where, in the same proceeding, the court terminates a parent’s rights to one child but not to others. Although at the time of the termination hearing Mother had successfully completed many services and was cocaine-free for eight months to the point of getting four of her children back, the record shows that Mother has nevertheless demonstrated a continued indifference to I.A.—ranging from using cocaine during the whole nine months of her pregnancy with him, to not knowing the extent of his medical conditions at birth, to not educating herself on his current medical needs. We therefore affirm the termination of Mother’s parental rights to I.A.
NFP civil opinions today (1):

In Carolynda Applebury-Todosichuk v. Damian Stevenson (NFP), a 5-page opinion, Judge Vaidik writes:

For the underlying proceedings in the trial court, appellant Carolynda Applebury- Todosichuk was represented by local Indiana counsel and an out-of-state attorney granted pro hac vice status by the trial court. Although out-of-state counsel failed to seek permission to proceed pro hac vice on appeal, both attorneys signed Applebury- Todosichuk’s Notice of Appeal. Out-of-state counsel then filed an Appellant’s Brief bearing only her signature; local counsel did not sign the brief. We cannot consider the merits of a brief improperly filed by an attorney not licensed to practice law in Indiana and not granted temporary permission to proceed in this Court. Because Applebury- Todosichuk has failed to timely file an appellate brief pursuant to Indiana Appellate Rule 45(B), we dismiss this appeal. * * *

Here, Applebury-Todosichuk failed to file an appellant’s brief, a violation of Indiana Appellate Rule 45(B). See Prof’l Laminate & Millwork, Inc., 651 N.E.2d at 1157 (party failed to act within the time required by law because filings by out-of-state attorney who had not received temporary admission were a nullity). This is a flagrant violation of the Rules of Appellate Procedure, and we therefore dismiss the appeal. [2]
___________
[2] Lest our dismissal of this appeal be thought harsh, we observe that this is not the first time a member of Attorney Burns’s law firm, Richard Ducote & Associates, PLC, has attempted to proceed in this Court on behalf of Applebury-Todosichuk without first petitioning for temporary admission. In May 2005, while representing Applebury-Todosichuk in another proceeding, attorney Richard Ducote filed Applebury-Todosichuk’s Appellant’s Case Summary with local Indiana counsel. Our Online Docket includes the notation: “Atty. Ducote has not yet been admitted pro hac vice and will need to petition to this Court before his signature may appear on any filing.” Online Docket, Applebury-Todosichuk v. Stevenson, 49A04-0505-CV-00250 (formatting changed). Attorney Ducote subsequently petitioned for and received temporary admission before this Court.

NFP criminal opinions today (2):

Joshua Powell v. State of Indiana (NFP)

Michael Lee Smiley v. State of Indiana (NFP)

Posted by Marcia Oddi on March 23, 2009 12:34 PM
Posted to Ind. App.Ct. Decisions