« Ind. Courts - More on Monroe County Circuit Judge Division 6 primary race | Main | Ind. Decisions - "This is one of those cases that gives lawyers a bad name" »
Friday, April 25, 2008
Ind. Decisions - Court of Appeals issues 2 today (and 4 NFP)
For publication opinions today (2):
In Kenneth Hay v. Wanda J. Hay, a 5-page opinion, Judge Barnes writes:
Kenneth raises two issues, which we consolidate and restate as whether the trial court properly ordered the sale of property that Kenneth held jointly with Wanda. * * *In State of Indiana v. Tracey Lamont Martin, a 7-page opinion, Judge Crone writes:Referencing Indiana Code Section 32-17-4-12(a),3 which permits the trial court to “order the whole or any part of the land to be sold,” Kenneth claims that the trial court should have ordered the sale of Wanda’s interest only. This section, however, provides for the sale of a portion of the land, not a portion of the co-tenants’ interests in the land. Our reading of the statute is in keeping with the holding that “the trial court does not have the power to order one tenant to sell his interest to the other, while allowing the tenant in possession the right to retain the entire tract.” * * * There is no indication that the trial court was permitted, let alone required, to order the sale of only Wanda’s interest in the property. The trial court properly granted Wanda’s motion for summary judgment.
The State of Indiana appeals from the trial court’s directed verdict in favor of Tracey Lamont Martin, who was charged with domestic battery as a class D felony. We reverse.NFP civil opinions today (1):Issue. The State raises as a reserved question of law the issue of whether the trial court erred in determining that a witness’s pretrial statements were testimonial and thus inadmissible at trial. * * *
In sum, we must conclude that the circumstances of the officers’ interrogation of Brooks objectively indicate that its primary purpose was to assist police in resolving an ongoing emergency. Therefore, Brooks’s statements to police were nontestimonial, and the trial court abused its discretion in excluding them. Reversed.
In In The Matter of B.F. and T.F., Children in Need of Services, Audrey Faver v. Marion County Department of Child Services, and Child Advocates, Inc. (NFP), a 7-page opinion, Judge Crone writes:
Audrey Faver (“Mother”) appeals from the trial court’s denial of her request for visitation with her children, B.F. and T.F., during the pendency of child in need of services (“CHINS”) proceedings and the trial court’s failure to appoint a public defender to represent her in the CHINS proceedings. Mother also alleges that she was denied the effective assistance of counsel in violation of the state and federal constitutions. We dismiss Mother’s appeal for lack of jurisdiction. Issue. The dispositive issue is whether we have jurisdiction to consider Mother’s appeal. * * *NFP criminal opinions today (3):The trial court’s order does not fall under any of the categories enumerated in Appellate Rule 14(A); thus, Mother was not entitled to an interlocutory appeal as a matter of right. Because Mother did not seek to file a discretionary interlocutory appeal pursuant to Appellate Rule 14(B) and no basis exists for a statutory interlocutory appeal pursuant to Appellate Rule 14(C), we hereby dismiss Mother’s appeal for lack of jurisdiction. See, e.g., Moser v. Moser, 838 N.E.2d 532, 534 (Ind. Ct. App. 2005) (“This court may dismiss appeals upon its own motion when it discovers it does not have jurisdiction. An appeal from an interlocutory order is not allowed unless specific authority is granted by the Indiana Constitution, statutes, or the rules of court. Moreover, any such express authorization for an interlocutory appeal is strictly construed.”) (citations and quotation marks omitted), trans. denied (2006). Dismissed.
Jerome Lee Fine v. State of Indiana (NFP)
Billy J. Freeman v. State of Indiana (NFP)
Trenell C. Bright v. State of Indiana (NFP)
Posted by Marcia Oddi on April 25, 2008 12:27 PM
Posted to Ind. App.Ct. Decisions