The Indiana Law Blog: Ind. Decisions - Court of Appeals issues 7 today (and 16 NFP)

« Ind. Decisions - Two Indiana cases from 7th Circuit at year's end | Main | Ind. Decisions - COA opinion today raises interesting issue »

Wednesday, December 31, 2008

Ind. Decisions - Court of Appeals issues 7 today (and 16 NFP)

For publication opinions today (7):

In Bart Dewald v. State of Indiana , a 10-page opinion, Judge Vaidik writes:

After a jury trial, Bart A. Dewald [a bail bondsman] was convicted of two counts of Class D felony criminal confinement. On appeal, he challenges the sufficiency of the evidence to support his convictions. First, he contends that the evidence does not show that he confined the victims and, in any event, confining them was not illegal because he had the authority to detain the victims in order to effectively perform his job. Second, he argues that the evidence fails to show that he acted "knowingly" because he believed that he acted within his authority. Concluding that the evidence is sufficient in both of these regards and that Dewald was not authorized to detain the victims, we affirm. * * *

Dewald‘s contention that he believed that he acted lawfully when he stopped Trovatore and Draper and that he therefore did not commit the crime of confinement "knowingly" is unavailing. "A person engages in conduct 'knowingly‘ if, when he engages in the conduct, he is aware of a high probability that he is doing so." Ind. Code § 35-42-2-2(b). Even if we take Dewald at his word that he fully believed that he was permitted by law to detain third parties when trying to locate his bail customers (which he had no reason under Mishler to believe), it is well-settled that ignorance of the law is no excuse for criminal behavior. [cites omitted] * * *

The evidence is sufficient to support Dewald‘s two convictions for Class D felony criminal confinement. Further, we decline Dewald‘s request that we expand the authority of bail bondsmen to permit them to detain third parties for investigatory purposes. The judgment of the trial court is affirmed.

Brenda Saalfrank v. Scott Saalfrank - "The trial court did not clearly err in declining to modify Father‘s existing child support obligation. The trial court did not abuse its discretion in determining parenting time or in ordering Mother to pay Father $4070 in attorney fees. Mother‘s appeal was not frivolous or in bad faith. Affirmed. "

In State of Indiana v. Charles Tungate and William Reynolds, a 14-page opinion, Judge Robb writes:

In this consolidated appeal involving several drug-related and theft charges, the trial court suppressed evidence seized from Charles Tungate and William Reynolds (the “Defendants”) because the warrants authorizing the seizure of such evidence were not supported by probable cause. On appeal, the State raises the sole issue of whether the trial court properly concluded the warrants were not supported by probable cause. Concluding that there was probable cause to search some, but not all, of the areas described in the warrants, we affirm in part and reverse in part. We also address the proper standard of review to apply in cases such as this where the trial court suppresses evidence after a magistrate determined there was probable cause to issue a warrant. [ILB - see pp. 5-7 of opinion re standard of review.]

Randy Gibbs v. State of Indiana - [See separate ILB entry here]

In Jesus A. Valenzuela v. State of Indiana, a 7-page opinion, Judge Najam writes:

[W]e address only the following dispositive issue: whether the trial court sentenced Valenzuela in accordance with the terms of his guilty plea agreement. We reverse and remand for resentencing. * * *

Valenzuela contends that the trial court violated the terms of his plea agreement when it sentenced him to an aggregate sentence of forty-five years, with thirty-two years executed. The State responds that the plea agreement is ambiguous but the course of the parties’ negotiations demonstrates that the thirty-five-year cap recommended by the State only applied to the executed portion of the sentence. We cannot agree with the State that the plea agreement is ambiguous. However, even if it were, we would agree with Valenzuela that that ambiguity is to be construed against the State.

Rodney Newkirk v. State of Indiana - "We agree with the trial court that there are no significant mitigators in this case. Therefore, in light of the horrific nature of the offenses and Newkirk‟s demonstrated likelihood to reoffend, we cannot say his sentence is inappropriate. Affirmed."

State of Indiana v. Williams Jenkins - " The State appeals the trial court‟s grant of Williams Jenkins' motion to suppress. Specifically, the State contends that because Jenkins, who was arrested for public intoxication and other crimes in the courtyard area of his apartment complex, was intoxicated in a public place, the trial court erred in granting his motion to suppress. We conclude that an outside, unenclosed courtyard area of an apartment complex is sufficiently distinguishable from an interior common area of an apartment building such that State v. Culp, 433 N.E.2d 823 (Ind. Ct. App. 1982), trans. denied, is not controlling. Accordingly, we find that Jenkins was in a public place and reverse the grant of his motion to suppress. "

NFP civil opinions today (4):

Ezra Bradshaw v. Gary Chandler and Affirmative Ins. Co. (NFP) - "Ezra Bradshaw appeals the trial court‟s grant of summary judgment in favor of Affirmative Insurance Company, Bradshaw‟s insurer, disposing of Bradshaw‟s claim for uninsured motorist benefits. On appeal, Bradshaw raises one issue, which we restate as
whether the trial court properly concluded Bradshaw‟s claim was time-barred pursuant to the two-year limitation period of the parties‟ auto insurance policy. We affirm, concluding that the trial court properly found Bradshaw‟s claim was time-barred because it was filed more than two years after the date of the accident, and neither the discovery rule nor Indiana Trial Rule 15(C) control the policy‟s limitation period. "

Paternity of B.C. and H.C. (NFP) - " However, we cannot determine without an offer of proof the nature of the excluded evidence sufficient to determine its relevancy. As a result, we cannot say that the trial court committed plain error by excluding this testimony. Affirmed. "

Gary Community School Corporation v. Lolita Roach-Walker and Victor Walker (NFP)

Sam Gates v. Ronald G. Pierson and Deborah J. Pierson (NFP)

NFP criminal opinions today (12):

Gene Smith v. State of Indiana (NFP)

Jeffrey Puckett v. State of Indiana (NFP)

Christopher Tyler v. State of Indiana (NFP)

Luciano D. Yzaguirre v. State of Indiana (NFP)

Absalom Julius v. State of Indiana (NFP)

Richarh Tyson v. State of Indiana (NFP)

Ronald Daniels v. State of Indiana (NFP)

Victor Salazar v. State of Indiana (NFP)

Cory Mayberry v. State of Indiana (NFP)