« Ind. Law - "State next-of-kin law challenged" | Main | Ind. Decisions - List of Court of Appeals NFP opinions issued for week ending September 1, 2006 »

Friday, September 01, 2006

Ind. Decisions - Court of Appeals issues 3 today (and 5 NFP)

For publication opinions today (3):

In Danny W. Ramsey v. State of Indiana, a 20-page opinion, Judge Baker concludes:

In light of the above conclusions, we find that the evidence was sufficient to support the habitual offender finding and that the trial court did not err in combining the habitual offender and aggravating circumstances phases of the trial. We also find that the prosecutor did not commit misconduct and that the trial court did not err in denying admitting evidence obtained during the controlled buys and from a search of his home. The judgment of the trial court is affirmed.
In Roy Truitt v. State of Indiana, a 7-page opinion, Judge Baker writes:
Appellant-petitioner Roy Truitt appeals the summary denial of his petition for post-conviction relief regarding his challenge to the effectiveness of counsel at his probation revocation hearing. Specifically, Truitt contends that the post-conviction court erred in denying his petition without a hearing on the merits of his claims. Concluding that the summary denial of Truitt’s petition for post-conviction relief was error, we reverse and remand for a hearing on the merits.
In Andrew G. Steele v. Department of Workforce Development and Harrison Healthcare, a 6-page opinion, Senior Judge Garrard writes:
After he was discharged by Harrison Healthcare, Inc., Steele applied for unemployment benefits. A deputy determined Steele was eligible. On appeal an administrative law judge reversed the finding having determined that Steele was discharged for refusing to obey instructions and for just cause. The Review Board affirmed without further hearing, and this appeal followed. * * *

On appeal Steele, now represented by counsel, contends that Steele failed to receive a hearing that comported with the requirements of Ind. Admin. Code tit. 646, § 3-12-3(b) and Flick v. Review Board, 443 N.E.2d 84, 87 (Ind. Ct. App. 1982). * * *

In Flick v. Review Board, 443 N.E.2d 84, 87 (Ind. Ct. App. 1982) this court held that the regulation imposes an affirmative duty upon the ALJ to see that an unrepresented claimant is afforded the opportunity to fully present his case. See, also, Thomas v. Review Board, 543 N.E.2d 397, 400 (Ind. Ct. App. 1989). * * *

From the foregoing we are forced to conclude that the ALJ failed in his duty to see that Steele was given the opportunity to fully present his case. Therefore, in accord with Flick we reverse and remand with instructions that Steele be given a new hearing consistent with the requirements of 646, § 3-12-3(b).

NFP civil opinions today (2):

In the Matter of: M.D., N.D., L.H., H.S., and S.S. (NFP) - "Concluding that the evidence was sufficient to support the CHINS determination, we affirm the judgment of the juvenile court."

In Gary O. Bovey, Tara Bovey, and Perfection Painting Unlimited, LLC v. Ross A. Nichols, Sharon K. Nichols, and Perfection Enterprises Inc. (NFP), an 18-page opinion, Judge Bailey writes:

On June 10, 2005, the trial court granted Perfection Enterprises’s petition for a preliminary injunction and enjoined Appellants “from using the name ‘Perfection Painting Unlimited, LLC’ or other name that would reasonably confuse their services and business with that of [Perfection Enterprises] during the pendency of this action.” * * * Affirmed.
NFP criminal opinions today (3) (link to cases):

In Jeryl Bingham v. State of Indiana (NFP), a 10-page opinion, Judge Baker concludes:

As in Marcum, there was no basis for the trial court here to impose consecutive sentences upon Bingham, given the absence of aggravating circumstances and the existence of one mitigating circumstance. As a result, we are compelled to vacate Bingham’s sentences and remand this case to the trial court with instructions that it impose concurrent sentences on all counts.
James A. Alcorn, II v. State of Indiana (NFP)

Lee Madison v. State of Indiana (NFP)

Posted by Marcia Oddi on September 1, 2006 10:21 AM
Posted to Ind. App.Ct. Decisions