January 07, 2005

Indiana Decisions - [Updated] One from Supreme Court, one from Tax Court today

Eric D. Holmes n/k/a Koor An Nur of Mary Katie Brown v. State of Indiana
[ORDER CONCERNING SUCCESSIVE PETITION FOR POST-CONVICTION RELIEF IN CAPITAL CASE]

This matter is before us on a request by petitioner, Eric D. Holmes, to file a successive petition for post-conviction relief from his death sentence pursuant to Indiana Post Conviction Rule 1, Section 12, and the “State’s Verified Response to Holmes’ Successive Petition for Post-Conviction Relief.” As explained below, permission to file a successive petition is denied. * * *

Shepard, C.J., and Dickson and Boehm, JJ., concur.
Sullivan, J., dissents with opinion in which Rucker, J., concurs.
Sullivan, Justice, dissenting.

I respectfully dissent from the Court’s order denying Petitioner Koor An Nur of Mary Katie Brown (formerly known as Eric D. Holmes) permission to file a successive petition for post-conviction relief. * * *

I would grant Petitioner’s request to file a successive petition for post-conviction relief.
Rucker, J., concurs.

[Update 1/8/05] This AP story today in the Evansville Courier&Press today provides a little more information on yesterday's 3-2 decision.

Indianapolis Welding Supply, Inc. v. Indiana Dept. of State Revenue (1/6/05 IndTaxCt - NFP) [Sales Tax]
Fisher, Judge

Indianapolis Welding Supply, Inc. (IWS) appeals the final determination of the Indiana Department of State Revenue (Department) which assessed it with unpaid sales and use tax for the 1993, 1994, and 1995 tax years (years at issue). The issue for the Court to decide is whether IWS is entitled to a public transportation exemption. * * *

Accordingly, the Court finds that IWS was required to deliver the gas to its customer’s destination; therefore, IWS owned the gas at the time it was being transported, and it is not entitled to the public transportation exemption. See Sam & Mac, Inc. v. Treat, 783 N.E.2d 760, 765 (Ind. Ct. App. 2003) (court found that when seller did not deliver property to an agreed upon destination point, title did not pass to the buyer).

CONCLUSION. For the aforementioned reasons, the Court AFFIRMS the Department’s final determination.

Posted by Marcia Oddi at January 7, 2005 02:11 PM