« Ind. Decisions - Supreme Court decides one today | Main | Ind. Courts - La Porte Superior Court 2 judge contest »

Tuesday, October 28, 2008

Ind. Decisions - Court of Appeals issues 3 today (and 10 NFP)

For publication opinions today (3):

In Adam Drake v. State of Indiana , a 16-page opinion, Chief Judge Baker writes:

Appellant-defendant Adam Drake appeals his conviction and sentence for Battery, a class D felony. Specifically, Drake argues that his Sixth Amendment right to counsel was violated because he did not knowingly and intelligently waive that right when the trial court granted his request to proceed pro se. Concluding that Drake did not make a knowing and intelligent waiver of his right to counsel, we reverse and remand for new trial. * * *

Again, we stress that whether or not a defendant made a knowing and intelligent waiver of the right to counsel depends upon the totality of the circumstances in each individual case, and there are no specific guidelines or “talking points” that a trial court must follow. Poynter, 749 N.E.2d at 1126. Rather, the trial court must determine whether a voluntary, knowing, and intelligent waiver exists by making certain that the defendant is aware of the dangers and disadvantages of proceeding without counsel and ensuring that the record reflects that the defendant made the decision with his or her “eyes open.” Osborne, 754 N.E.2d at 920-21. The guidelines discussed above are only meant to be a resource to trial courts in making this sometimes difficult determination.

In Johanna P. Williams v. State of Indiana , a 20-page opinion, Judge Riley concludes:
Based on the foregoing, we conclude that Williams was sentenced in violation of Blakely, so we remand this cause to the trial court to allow the State the opportunity to properly establish the position of trust aggravator. However, we also conclude that the evidence was sufficient to support the trial court’s determination that Williams is a sexually violent predator and that the lifetime registration requirement, as applied to Williams, does not violate constitutional prohibitions on ex post facto laws. Affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded with instructions.
In Ronald Lynn Scott, Jr. v. State of Indiana , a 14-page opinion, Judge Rley concludes:
Based on the foregoing, we conclude that (1) the trial court did not err in failing to hold a hearing requiring the doctors to explain their conclusions regarding Scott’s alleged status as a sexually violent predator and (2) the evidence is sufficient to support the trial court’s finding that Scott is a sexually violent predator. Affirmed.
NFP civil opinions today (1):

Lafayette Accounts Svc., Inc. v. Larry Richard Bartley (NFP) - "Lafayette argues that inasmuch as there are no issues of material fact and it is entitled to judgment as a matter of law, the trial court should have granted summary judgment in its favor on its complaint against Bartley for an account stated based on medical bills that Bartley has allegedly failed to pay. Finding that Lafayette is entitled to judgment as a matter of law, we reverse and remand with instructions. "

NFP criminal opinions today (9):

S.M.J. v. State of Indiana (NFP)

Jarmarcus T. Lasley v. State of Indiana (NFP)

Scott Morris II v. State of Indiana (NFP)

Michael Johnson v. State of Indiana (NFP)

Heartfield Steele v. State of Indiana (NFP)

Gregory Scott Michael v. State of Indiana (NFP)

Ronald Lynn Scott, Jr. v. State of Indiana

Brian Wagner v. State of Indiana (NFP)

Shaun A. Miles v. State of Indiana (NFP)

Posted by Marcia Oddi on October 28, 2008 07:06 PM
Posted to Ind. App.Ct. Decisions