« Ind. Decisions - Supreme Court denies transfer in the Morgan County same-sex adoption case [Corrected] | Main | Ind. Courts - Lake County scofflaw jurors do jail time »

Friday, August 04, 2006

Ind. Decisions - Court of Appeals issues two today

In Keith Combs v. State of Indiana, a 22-page opinion (with a concur/dissent beginning on p. 18), Judge Mathias writes:

Concluding that the trial court did not abuse its discretion when it admitted the evidence obtained during the search of Combs’s vehicle, but that Combs’s sentence is inappropriate in light of the nature of the offense and the character of the offender, we affirm in part, reverse in part, and remand for proceedings consistent with this opinion. * * *

Here, as in Myers, the narcotics-detection canine alerted to the exterior of the vehicle and the deputies believed that Combs was under the influence of methamphetamine due to his paranoid behavior, rapid speech, and dry mouth. Under these facts and circumstances, the deputies had probable cause to believe that the vehicle contained contraband or evidence of a crime. Moreover, the vehicle was “readily mobile.” Therefore, we conclude that the search of the vehicle was proper and the trial court did not abuse its discretion when it admitted the evidence obtained during the warrantless search. * * *

We agree with Combs that the trial court should not have considered the positive test result for methamphetamine as an aggravating circumstance because the State never proved the positive test result beyond a reasonable doubt. See Blakely v. Washington, 542 U.S. 296, 301 (2004) (“Other than the fact of a prior conviction, any fact that increases the penalty for a crime beyond the prescribed statutory maximum must be submitted to a jury, and proved beyond a reasonable doubt.”). * * *

ROBB, J., concurs.
VAIDIK, J., concurs in part and dissents in part with opinion. [which begins]

I agree with the majority that the warrantless search of the car was proper. However, I part ways with the majority’s analysis and conclusion on the inappropriate sentence issue. I therefore concur in part and dissent in part.

In Teresa C. Mills v. Carlos Berrios, M.D. & Clarian Health Partners, an 11-page opinion, Judge Crone writes:
Case Summary. Teresa C. Mills appeals the trial court’s entry of summary judgment in favor of Carlos R. Berrios, M.D., OrthoIndy, and Clarian Health Partners d/b/a Methodist Hospital (collectively referred to as “Healthcare Providers”). We reverse and remand.

Issue. The dispositive issue is whether the trial court abused its discretion in finding that the admissible portions of the affidavit of Mills’s medical expert were legally insufficient to establish a genuine issue of material fact. * * *

We conclude that, even without the portions of Dr. Pohnert’s affidavit that refer to Mills’s affidavit, Dr. Pohnert’s affidavit is sufficient to establish a genuine issue of material fact as to whether Healthcare Providers complied with the appropriate standard of care. Thus, the trial court abused its discretion in finding that the portions of Dr. Pohnert’s affidavit that remained were legally insufficient to oppose the designation of Healthcare Providers. We therefore reverse the trial court’s entry of summary judgment in favor of Healthcare Providers and remand for further proceedings. Reversed and remanded.

Posted by Marcia Oddi on August 4, 2006 10:04 AM
Posted to Ind. App.Ct. Decisions