« Ind. Decisions - "Ind. court reinstates student's convictions" | Main | Ind. Courts - "Wells Fargo sues Lauth executives, wives" »

Friday, June 19, 2009

Ind. Decisions - Court of Appeals issues 3 today (and 4 NFP)

For publication opinions today (3):

In James Martin v. State of Indiana , a 7-page opinion, Judge Barnes concludes:

Here, there was testimony establishing that Martin created unreasonable noise in the work release facility for at least four virtually continuous hours. Employees at the facility clearly were disturbed by this conduct, which it is reasonable to infer went well beyond the normal sounds one would hear in such a facility. Major Dickerson could hear Martin's tirade at his desk forty yards away from the holding cell, which had a solid steel door with a glass window. Major Dickerson and one other employee had to interrupt their regular duties to address Martin's situation. Clearly, even if Martin's speech was “political” his disturbance was more than a mere fleeting annoyance and it interfered with the duties of the facility's employees. This was sufficient evidence to establish that Martin abused his free speech rights under the Indiana Constitution. Even if one is engaging in protected political speech, this “does not obviate one's responsibility to act in a civilly responsible manner.” Blackman, 868 N.E.2d at 588. Martin did not act in such a manner.

Conclusion. There is sufficient evidence to support Martin's conviction for disorderly conduct, and that conviction does not violate Article 1, Section 9 of the Indiana Constitution. We affirm.

James Holsclaw v. State of Indiana - "By pleading guilty, Holsclaw gave up his right to challenge his conviction on direct appeal. Pursuant to the terms of his written plea agreement, Holsclaw gave up his right to challenge his sentence on direct appeal. We affirm."

In Donna P. Masotto v. State of Indiana, a 7-page opinion, Judge Robb writes:

Donna Masotto appeals her conviction, following a bench trial, of battery on a law enforcement officer, a Class A misdemeanor. For our review, Masotto raises a single issue, whether sufficient evidence supports her conviction. Concluding the evidence is sufficient, we affirm.

Officer Calloway returned to the living room to attempt to get Masotto’s identification from Vasquez. At this point, Masotto came out of her room, completely naked, and walked toward the officers cursing and telling them to get out of the apartment. At that point, the officer-in-charge decided the officers should leave the apartment and return the next day to issue the citation. As the three officers walked out the front door, Masotto pushed Officer Mathewson, who was last in line, in the back. Officer Mathewson then felt the door hit him on the heel. All three of the officers then returned to the apartment and subdued and arrested Masotto.

On March 31, 2008, the State charged Masotto with battery on a law enforcement officer, a Class A misdemeanor, and disorderly conduct, a Class B misdemeanor. The trial court conducted a bench trial on November 5, 2008, after which it convicted Masotto of battery on a law enforcement officer, but acquitted her of disorderly conduct. The trial court sentenced Masotto to 365 days with 355 suspended to probation and the remaining ten days fulfilled by time served with good time credit. Masotto now appeals. * * *

Even accepting Masotto’s argument that the officers acted unlawfully when they entered her apartment, this does not excuse her actions. The officers did not attempt a forceful entry; they were invited in by Vasquez. In addition, Masotto was not resisting the officer’s entry or her arrest; her actions can most generously be characterized as assisting their departure. Such a parting shot falls squarely within the boundaries of the conduct the battery on a law enforcement officer statute seeks to prevent. Masotto battered Officer Mathewson while he was engaged in his official duty. As a result, the evidence supports her conviction.

NFP civil opinions today (2):

The Term. of the Parent-Child Rel. of A.D. and I.M.; and J.D. and R.M. (NFP)

Carolyn Lange v. Sisters of St. Francis Health Services, Inc. d/b/a St. Clare Medical Center (NFP) - "According to Sharp, Slagle told her 'they had only recently (within approximately the past 10 days) received a copy of the Order, but they only received that copy after noticing on www.doxpop.com that a ruling had been issued.” * * *

"According to our Supreme Court, Trial Rule 72(E) 'plainly states that only if the CCS [Clerk's Chronological Case Summary] does not contain evidence that a copy of the court's entry was sent to each party may a party claiming not to have received such notice petition the trial court for an extension of time to initiate an appeal.' Collins, 644 N.E.2d at 118 (emphasis added)."

For more on Lange, see Doug Masson's comments here, at Masson's Blog.

NFP criminal opinions today (2):

State of Indiana v. Jerry L. Taylor (NFP)

Kevin Payton v. State of Indiana (NFP)

Posted by Marcia Oddi on June 19, 2009 12:25 PM
Posted to Ind. App.Ct. Decisions