« Ind. Law - More on golf carts in Lebanon | Main | Ind. Law - Impact of the decision in Heller on Indiana (and Chicago) »

Thursday, June 26, 2008

Ind. Decisions - Supreme Court issues a mini-slew of new opinions late today

In addition to the opinion in Jeter (here), issued earlier, the Supreme Court has now posted five additional opinions.

In Nicole L. Huss v. David M. Huss, a 14-page, 5-0 opinion in a case argued 1/31/08, Justice Dickson writes:

In seeking dissolution of their marriage, the husband and wife each declared that there were four children born of their marriage, and each requested both temporary and permanent custody of all four children from the dissolution court. But while the dissolution case was pending in Adams Circuit Court, the wife initiated a separate paternity action in Wells Circuit Court and obtained a final order establishing that another man was the biological father of one of these children and granting her custody of that child. The wife then sought to use the paternity judgment as a basis to dismiss in the dissolution case all custody proceedings regarding said child. Following a contested final hearing, the Adams Circuit Court ordered the marriage dissolved, divided the marital property, awarded the husband custody of all four children, and ordered child support. The Court of Appeals, in a memorandum decision, vacated the portions of the dissolution decree pertaining to the said child but affirmed the award of custody of the three other children to the husband. Huss v. Huss, 01C01-0504-DR-37 (July 25, 2007). We granted transfer and now affirm the dissolution court's custody determination. * * *

Conclusion. Having previously granted transfer, we summarily affirm the Court of Appeals determination of the wife's appellate allegations of improper denial of her Trial Rule 53.1 request and of fundamental unfairness and violation of due process. Finding that the dissolution court was authorized to determine the custody of all four children of the parties' marriage, including the child whose paternity was separately found to be in a man other than the husband, and that the wife has failed to establish that evidence failed to support the findings and judgment of the dissolution court, we affirm the dissolution and custody judgment of the Adams Circuit Court.

In Keith Neff v. State of Indiana, a 6-page, 5-0 opinion, Justice Sullivan writes:
Our opinion in Robinson v. State discussed the procedures available to a prisoner for correcting a sentence erroneous on the face of the judgment of conviction. 805 N.E.2d 783 (Ind. 2004). This opinion sets forth the proper handling of three collateral issues that have arisen in the context of Keith Neff’s effort to correct what he alleged was an incorrect calculation of “credit time” to which he was entitled: (1) the absence of a judgment of conviction; (2) the proper calculation of “earliest release date”; and (3) the necessity of invoking the offender grievance process before seeking judicial review. * * *

Conclusion. For purposes of filing a motion to correct erroneous sentence, an abstract of judgment may function in place of a judgment of conviction in a county, such as Marion County, in which trial courts do not regularly issue formal judgments of conviction. Neff concedes that he initially incorrectly calculated the time remaining in his sentence and is therefore not entitled to relief. We hold that where DOC mistakenly fails to give an offender earned credit time, the offender must exhaust administrative remedies before seeking relief from a court.

Charles Young v. State of Indiana (363) - "It is, of course, possible that a prisoner could accidentally be deprived of earned credit time toward his sentence. The presumption in Robinson has the effect of treating such an accident as merely an administrative error that can be addressed by the Department of Correction (DOC) easily and efficiently through its offender grievance process. It is for this reason that we hold today in Neff v. State, No. 49S02-0806-CR-362, slip op. (Ind. June 26, 2008), that a pris-oner must show that administrative remedies have been exhausted before pursuing a remedy in the state court system."

Charles Young v. State of Indiana (364) - "We offer Young the same admonishment in this case that he receives today with regard to another appeal. See Young v. State, No. 27S02-0608-PC-363, slip op. (Ind. June 26, 2008). If Young hopes to prevail on his claim after he has properly presented it to the Court via post-conviction procedures, he must present evidence supporting each portion of it with his proposed successive petition for post-conviction relief filed along with his Successive Post-Conviction Re-lief Rule 1 Petition Form pursuant to P-C.R. 1(12) (if this were Young’s first post-conviction pe-tition, he would present it directly to the post-conviction court). Here, for example, Young must show in the first place what the relevant DOC administrative grievance procedures are, and then that he has exhausted them at all levels. Young must also present evidence of his diploma and the credentials of the school that awarded it. He must show that he meets each requirement of any necessary statute (for example, I.C. § 35-50-6-3.3). Just as in his other appeal decided today, even if Young’s claim were properly before a court, the court would not be able to decide it without more information."

In Michael D. Smith v. State of Indiana, a 7-page, 4-1 opinion, Justice Sullivan writes:

A jury convicted defendant Michael D. Smith on four counts of child molesting. The trial court ordered four consecutive sentences of 30 years each, a total executed sentence of 120 years. Based on the character of the offender and the nature of the offenses, we revise the sentence to a total of 60 years. * * *

Shepard, C.J., and Rucker, J., concur.
Boehm, J., concurs in the result.
Dickson, J., dissents with separate opinion. [which concludes] I am not convinced that this case is sufficiently rare or exceptional to warrant appellate intrusion into the trial court's sentencing determination.

Note: These cases were granted transfer with opinion: Smith, Neff, Young, and Young.

Posted by Marcia Oddi on June 26, 2008 06:05 PM
Posted to Ind. Sup.Ct. Decisions