« Environment - "Yet One More Bush EPA Air Rule Goes Down" | Main | Law - "New Rule Enacted by Bush Administration Impedes Cases Against Nursing Homes" »

Tuesday, February 24, 2009

Ind. Decisions - Court of Appeals issues 3 today (and 7 NFP)

For publication opinions today (3):

In Charles Dwayne Gilliam v. State of Indiana , an 11-page opinion, Judge Darden writes:

[Gilliam argues] that his non-support of his eight dependent children constituted a single episode of criminal conduct. We cannot agree. * * *

Gilliam appears to confuse the notion of a “continuous” obligation to pay child support with the concept of multiple events constituting a “single episode of conduct.” Boss, 702 N.E.2d at 784; Williams, 891 N.E.2d at 624. The facts herein reveal that when Gilliam failed, during the applicable periods between January 1, 2001, and December 31, 2004, to pay court-ordered child support, three separate and distinct households (with different sets of victims) were deprived of support for dependent children. * * *

Based upon the foregoing facts, Gilliam has not demonstrated that his offenses constituted a single episode of criminal conduct. Thus, we conclude that the trial court did not err in imposing consecutive sentences. * * *

In our view, Gilliam has failed to advance any discernible argument regarding the nature of his non-support of dependent children offenses or his character. Thus, we find that he has failed to present a cogent argument in support of this claim and has, therefore, waived the issue. See Ind. App. Rule 46(A)(8)(a).

Gilliam argues that his sentence is inappropriate pursuant to Indiana Appellate Rule 7(B). * * *

Gilliam's failure to provide child support for his eight dependent children with three different women and his extensive criminal history reflects strongly upon his character which shows disrespect for the law and/or an unwillingness to conform his behavior to socially-acceptable norms. After considering the nature of the offenses and the character of the offender, we cannot say that Gilliam's sentence is inappropriate.

In Michael W. George v. State of Indiana , a 13-page opinion, Judge Robb writes:
Following a bench trial, Michael George appeals his conviction of possession of a controlled substance, a Class D felony. On appeal, George raises one issue, which we restate as whether the trial court properly concluded that the seizure of morphine tablets during a warrantless search of George's vehicle did not violate the Fourth Amendment of the United States Constitution or Article I, Section 11, of the Indiana Constitution. Concluding the trial court properly concluded the search did not violate either constitutional provision, we affirm. * * *

The State concedes Deputy Chandler‟s inventorying of the vehicle was a search and that it was conducted without a warrant. As such, Deputy Chandler‟s search was per se unreasonable, and the State bore the burden of convincing the trial court that the search fell within one of the well-delineated exceptions to the warrant requirement. * * *

The inventory search of George‟s vehicle did not violate the Fourth Amendment of the United States Constitution or Article I, Section 11, of the Indiana Constitution, and the trial court therefore properly admitted the items seized from the inventory search into evidence. Affirmed.

In Thomas Allen House v. State of Indiana - "Thomas Allen House appeals the order revoking his suspended sentence. We affirm in part, reverse in part, and remand. Issue: Whether the trial court erred by not awarding credit time."

NFP civil opinions today (5):

Michael D. Baker v. Jerry Lehman (NFP) - "We agree with Baker that even if he was indebted to RNIC for the commissions on the cancelled policies, the fact that Lehman was also liable renders equitable subrogation inapplicable here. * * * We are unaware of any other theory under which Lehman is entitled to recover from Baker. Consequently, we reverse the trial court's judgment in Lehman's favor.
Reversed."

Christal Chandler v. Hardigg Industries (NFP) - "Following a bench trial, Michael George appeals his conviction of possession of a controlled substance, a Class D felony. On appeal, George raises one issue, which we restate as whether the trial court properly concluded that the seizure of morphine tablets during a warrantless search of George's vehicle did not violate the Fourth Amendment of the United States Constitution or Article I, Section 11, of the Indiana Constitution. Concluding the trial court properly concluded the search did not violate either constitutional provision, we affirm."

Aaron S. Bowland and Christina Bowland v. Ryobi Die Casting (USA), Inc. (NFP) - This is a 27-page opinion that concludes:

Based upon the foregoing, we conclude that Ryobi successfully negated the “duty element” of the Bowlands‟ negligence claim. The trial court correctly granted summary judgment in Ryobi‟s favor. See Howard, 879 N.E.2d at 1122 (“To prevail on a motion for summary judgment in a negligence case, the defendant must establish that the undisputed material facts negate at least one element of the plaintiff‟s claim or that the claim is barred by an affirmative defense.”). Affirmed.
In the Matter of the Term. of Parent-Child Rel. of N.W., et al.; S.P. v. Dept. of Child Svcs. (NFP)

John White v. Monroe Co. Dept. of Child Services (NFP)

NFP criminal opinions today (2):

Joshua L. Miller v. State of Indiana (NFP)

Gary T. McGuire v. State of Indiana (NFP)

Posted by Marcia Oddi on February 24, 2009 12:10 PM
Posted to Ind. App.Ct. Decisions