« About this blog - Sign-up now as an ILB supporter | Main | Courts - SCOTUS decides Melendez-Diaz, others; Indiana implications of M-D »

Thursday, June 25, 2009

Ind. Decisions - Court of Appeals issues 5 today (and 7 NFP)

For publication opinions today (5):

In Guardianship of L.R.; B.R. v. Irma Hampton (Nave) Stewart, et al, an 11-page opinion, Chief Judge Baker writes:

This appeal presents a tangled knot of multiple trial court orders and multiple notices of appeal. But when the knot is untangled and the vituperative language used by the appellant’s attorney is removed from the snarl of issues, the correct outcome is apparent. The motions panel properly dismissed the first two notices of appeal—one for being untimely and the other for being an appeal from a non-appealable order—and the trial court properly granted the requested attorney and administrative fees at issue in the third appeal.

Appellant-respondent B.R. (Daughter) appeals three orders entered by the trial court relating to attorney fee petitions filed by appellees-petitioners Irma Hampton Stewart, John W. Longnaker, III, and First Merchants Trust, as Guardian of the Estate of L.R. (collectively, the appellees). In the third appeal, Daughter argues that the trial court erred by awarding the appellees’ requested administrative and appellate attorney fees. Finding no error, we affirm.

In Eric D. Smith v. Jeff Wriglery and David L. Ittenbach , an 11-page opinion, the issue is "Whether the trial court erred in dismissing Smith's complaint as frivolous under Indiana‟s Frivolous Claim Law, Ind. Code § 34-58-1-2." Judge Riley concludes:
Put bluntly, we cannot endorse a system in which Eric Smith's complaints are dismissed merely because they were filed by Eric Smith. This would be the equivalent of shutting the courthouse doors altogether. Indiana's Three Strikes Law did the same thing to Smith, and last year, our supreme court found that law to be unconstitutional. See Smith v. Ind. Dep’t of Corr., 883 N.E.2d 802 (Ind. 2008). The court held that, under the Indiana Constitution, “an individualized assessment of each claim is required, and a claim cannot be dismissed on the basis of who presents it rather than whether it has merit.” Id. at 806; see also Jones v. Bock, 549 U.S. 199, 203 (2007) (“Most of these cases have no merit; many are frivolous. Our legal system, however, remains committed to guaranteeing that prisoner claims of illegal conduct by their custodians are fairly handled according to law.”).

Finally, we pause to clarify that it is not our holding that all prisoner complaints must be allowed to proceed past the pleading phase. Complaints that are facially frivolous, e.g., those that reference little green men or a constitutional right to Rogaine, can still be summarily dismissed at the screening stage. In the meantime, we urge our legislature to consider some of the steps taken by other states in an attempt to lessen the burden of meritless offender litigation, several of which our supreme court cited in its Smith opinion last year. 883 N.E.2d at 808-09. Likewise, as noted by our supreme court, federal courts have upheld the PLRA, which does not prevent inmates from pursuing claims but merely requires that they pay the filing fee. Id. at 809.

CONCLUSION. Based on the foregoing, we conclude that the trial court erred by dismissing Smith's complaint as frivolous under Indiana Code section 34-58-1-2.

Steven William Bockler v. State of Indiana - "Based on the foregoing, we conclude that the State presented sufficient evidence to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Bockler operated a motor boat while intoxicated and resisted law enforcement. We also conclude that the restitution order appears to be based, in part, upon expenses which are not a proper consideration for criminal restitution. Therefore, we remand with instructions so that the trial court may adjust the restitution order."

In Eric Gonzalez v. State of Indiana , a 9-page opinion, CJ Baker writes:

Appellant-defendant Eric Gonzalez appeals his conviction for Auto Theft,1 a class D felony, arguing that the evidence is insufficient to support the conviction. Finding no error, we affirm. * * *

To convict Gonzalez of class D felony auto theft, the State was required to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that he knowingly or intentionally exerted unauthorized control over Hugo’s vehicle, with the intent to deprive Hugo of the vehicle’s value or use or of a component part of the vehicle. I.C. §35-43-4-2.5(b).

Gonzalez directs our attention to well-established authority holding that, “for purposes of supporting a theft conviction in cases of considerable lapses of time, [the State must prove] that the defendant had exclusive possession of the stolen property during the period of time since the theft occurred.” * * *

Here, in contrast, Gonzalez was charged based on the portion of the statute making it a crime to knowingly or intentionally exert unauthorized control over a vehicle with the intent to deprive the owner of a component part of the vehicle. I.C. §35-43-4-2.5(b). When a defendant is charged under this part of the statute, the State must establish a nexus in time or possession between the defendant and the theft of the vehicle’s component parts. * * *

We find this evidence sufficient to establish that Gonzalez knowingly or intentionally exerted unauthorized control over the Chevrolet with the intent to deprive the owner of component parts of the vehicle.

Milton Kenney v. State of Indiana - "While the jury could have made different inferences from the evidence, we cannot say that the inferences made by the jury here were unreasonable. Thus, we conclude that evidence of probative value exists from which the jury could have found Kenney guilty beyond a reasonable doubt of felony murder."

NFP civil opinions today (5):

In the Matter of J.L.; A.C. v. Hamilton Co. Dept. of Child Svcs. (NFP)

Charles J. Rathburn, Jr. v. Christine A. Rathburn (NFP)

Adecco v. Clarian Health Partners (NFP)

Morgan County Commissioners v. Clarian Health Partners (NFP)

Wayne Township Fire Department v. Beltway Surgery Center (NFP)

NFP criminal opinions today (2):

Thomas D. Hunter v. State of Indiana (NFP)

Tierre J. Carpenter v. State of Indiana (NFP)

Posted by Marcia Oddi on June 25, 2009 10:18 AM
Posted to Ind. App.Ct. Decisions