« Courts - More on "Judge Moves Appeal of Chrysler Sale to 2nd Circuit" [Updated] | Main | Ind. Decisions - Identifying the Articles of the Indiana Constitution [Updated] »
Wednesday, June 03, 2009
Ind. Decisions - Court of Appeals issues 1 today (and 12 NFP)
For publication opinions today (1):
In Joel C. Vaughen v. State of Indiana , a 5-page opinion, Judge Bailey concludes:
In light of the nature of the offense and the character of the offender, Vaughen has not convinced this Court that his sentence is inappropriate.From earlier in the opinion:
More recently, the Court reiterated that “sentencing is principally a discretionary function in which the trial court's judgment should receive considerable deference.” Cardwell v. State, 895 N.E.2d 1219, 1222 (Ind. 2008). Indiana's flexible sentencing scheme allows trial courts to tailor an appropriate sentence to the circumstances presented. See id. at 1224. One purpose of appellate review is to attempt to “leaven the outliers.” Id. at 1225. “[W]hether we regard a sentence as appropriate at the end of the day turns on our sense of the culpability of the defendant, the severity of the crime, the damage done to others, and myriad other factors that come to light in a given case.” Id. at 1224.Page 2 of the opinion has a lengthy footnote 2 that occupies half the page. A reader has opined that perhaps it is the footnote itself that is the reason this case is a "For Publication" opinion. Here is the second paragraph of note 2:
While Ind. Administrative Rule 9(G)(1)(b)(viii) requires the complete exclusion of pre-sentence reports from public access filings, we also note there are instances when simple redaction of confidential information is sufficient. In civil cases, where the appellant's appendix is to include only those documents from the Clerk's Record that are relevant and necessary to the issues raised on appeal, App. R. 50(A)(2)(f), and in criminal cases, where the entire Clerk's Record is to be included in the appendix, App. R. 50(B)(1)(a), the rules provide that when only a portion of a document contains information that must be excluded from public access, such information may be redacted from the document, App. R. 9(J); T.R. 5(G)(2). If, for instance, a relevant document in a dissolution case includes a bank account number that is to be excluded from public access, the bank account number or address, neither of which is relevant to the disposition of the appeal, could be redacted without a wholesale inclusion of those documents in a green appendix. If the information cannot be redacted or if the information is relevant to the issues raised on appeal, then the entire document can and should be included in a green appendix. NFP civil opinions today (4):Robert Evans, et al v. Richardson Wildlife Sanctuary, Inc. (NFP) - "Richardson Wildlife Sanctuary, Inc. (“RWS”), a non-profit organization, attempted to create a wildlife sanctuary in the town of Dune Acres, Indiana. After the Dune Acres Town Council denied RWS permission to create the sanctuary, three Dune Acres couples brought suit against RWS, seeking a preliminary injunction to stop RWS from altering the property further and to force RWS to remove the structures it had already built. Upon RWS? motion, the trial court dismissed the complaint for failure to state a claim. The plaintiffs then filed both an amended complaint and a motion to correct errors and reconsider. The trial court denied the motion to correct errors and reconsider, and the plaintiffs appeal the dismissal of their complaints. We affirm the dismissal of their complaints for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. "
Thomas E. Cowdrey, Jr. v. Wendy Bryant (NFP) - "When we acknowledge the substance of Cowdrey’s action, it becomes clear that he is attempting to clarify or modify the terms of the warranty deed based upon an antecedent agreement between himself and Bryant. Stated another way, by issuing the warranty deed, Cowdrey has promised to the world that he would defend Bryant’s ownership of the property from all competing claims, but now Cowdrey is trying to compete with Bryant’s claim. The parol evidence rule does not permit Cowdrey to use our courts to facilitate such a contradiction of actions. Therefore, we must affirm the trial court’s grant of summary judgment to Bryant. "
In the Matter of: Ka.S. and Ke.S.; B.M. v. Marion Co. Dept. of Child Svcs. (NFP)
NFP criminal opinions today (8):
Dante Webb v. State of Indiana (NFP)
Adam M. Wagner v. State of Indiana (NFP)
Danny L. Wilbert v. State of Indiana (NFP)
Filiberto Reyes v. State of Indiana (NFP)
Shawn L. Arnold v. State of Indiana (NFP)
James A. Martin v. State of Indiana (NFP)
Sharon L. Gidden v. State of Indiana (NFP)
Joseph A. Fisher v. State of Indiana (NFP)
Posted by Marcia Oddi on June 3, 2009 11:17 AM
Posted to Ind. App.Ct. Decisions