« About this Blog - Again, please sign on as annual ILB supporter | Main | Ind. Decisions - 7th Circuit decides one Indiana case today »

Monday, September 28, 2009

Ind. Decisions - Court of Appeals issues 4 today (and 5 NFP)

For publication opinions today (4):

In Indiana High School Athletic Association, Inc. v. Gregory S. Schafer, et al , a 14-page opinion, Judge May writes:

The Indiana High School Athletic Association (“IHSAA”) appeals the award of attorney fees to Gregory Schafer and Shane Schafer. We remand. * * *

We are unable to affirm the award of attorney fees because the trial court’s findings do not support its judgment. But our result on that narrow ground must not be interpreted to condone IHSAA’s actions, in either its “arbitrary and capricious,” application of its rules to Shane, which application Judge Kickbush aptly described as “absurdity,” (id.), or its conduct of this litigation, which “degenerated to a goal to determine who would own the ship and who would paddle the oars.”

We have commented with disapproval on similar litigation tactics employed in the past by IHSAA * * *

The case before us raises the same concerns that the IHSAA is trying “to send a message to parents and student athletes in Indiana about the great risk and expense involved in challenging a ruling, and thus discourage them from appealing a denial of eligibility.” The findings in this case are currently insufficient to support the judgment, but as in Smyth, it appears the evidence in the record might. We accordingly remand so the trial court may further consider and explain its judgment with regard to its conclusion on the attorney fees issue.

Munster Med Inn v. Sheila Banks "Munster Med Inn (“Munster”) appeals the determination of the Worker’s Compensation Board that the Second Injury Fund is not responsible for a portion of Sheila Banks’ disability benefits. Banks cross-appeals, requesting that we increase her award. We reverse and remand, but deny the cross appeal."

In Danny J. McAllister v. State of Indiana , a 10-page opinion, Judge May concludes:

Pursuant to the applicable statutes, McCallister was entitled to receive credit toward his sentence for the days he served while imprisoned before he was sentenced (ninety-five days) plus an additional one day of credit time, or Class I credit, for each day of presentence confinement (ninety-five days). Because the sentencing order awarded McCallister only five days of presentencing confinement credit plus five days of Class I credit, we reverse and remand with instructions to award the correct credit time.*
_____
* We note the trial court cannot now reject McCallister’s plea. “A plea agreement is contractual in nature, binding the defendant, the state, and the trial court, once the judge accepts it.” St. Clair v. State, 901 N.E.2d 490, 492 (Ind. 2009). We also direct the trial court to correct its sentencing order to reflect the sentencing language contained in the plea agreement. See id. at 493 (explaining that once a trial court accepts a plea agreement, it has only that degree of sentencing discretion provided in the agreement). Specifically, the CCS entry regarding sentencing indicates that McCallister’s two-year sentence “is suspended on the condition” that McCallister serve his ninety-day jail time and six-month work release. (App. at 3.) However, the sentencing terms contained in the plea agreement provide that McCallister is to be sentenced to two years, with the first ninety days executed at the county jail, the next six months executed on work release, and the remaining fifteen months suspended to drug probation. (See id. at 48.)
In M.W. v. State of Indiana , a 9-page opinion, Judge Riley writes:
Appellant, the Indiana Department of Child Services (DCS), appeals the trial court’s Order mandating the DCS to pay the costs of the minor child’s, M.W., secure detention and weekly child support while M.W. is incarcerated at the Department of Correction. We reverse. * * *

Pursuant to HEA 1001, effective January 1, 2009, DCS was granted the authority to recommend services and placements in all CHINS, termination of parental rights, and delinquency cases. * * *

Based on these unambiguous statutory provisions, the DCS is not responsible to carry the costs of the minor child’s secure detention unless there is a written agreement. Here, no such written agreement ever existed and therefore, the DCS cannot be held liable to pay M.W.’s costs of secure detention to Hendricks County. * * *

Based on the foregoing, we conclude that (1) the trial court erred in mandating the DCS to pay the costs of secure detention for a minor child; and (2) the trial court erred in finding that the DCS was required to pay weekly child support for the minor child. Reversed.

ILB note: See also the ILB observation after the second decision in this Sept. 11th ILB entry.

NFP civil opinions today (1):

Term. of Parent-Child Rel. of T.P., et al; A.P. v. IDCS (NFP)

NFP criminal opinions today (4):

Thomas Lee Nickels v. State of Indiana (NFP)

David Skiles v. State of Indiana (NFP)

Charles Davis v. State of Indiana (NFP)

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

Posted by Marcia Oddi on September 28, 2009 11:20 AM
Posted to Ind. App.Ct. Decisions