Monday, August 30, 2010
Ind. Decisions - Upcoming oral arguments this week and next
This week's oral arguments before the Supreme Court (week of 8/30/10):
Thursday, September 2nd
- 9:00 AM - Matthew Baugh v. State of Indiana (
18S04-1007-CR-398) - After Baugh was convicted of two counts of sexual misconduct with a minor, the Delaware Circuit Court found him to be a sexually violent predator. On appeal, Baugh argued that the process the trial court followed in making the finding did not comply with statutory requirements. The Court of Appeals held this argument had been procedurally defaulted because Baugh did not raise the issue in the trial court, and rejected Baugh's other arguments. Baugh v. State, 926 N.E.2d 497 (Ind. Ct. App. 2010), vacated. The Supreme Court has granted a petition to transfer the case and has assumed jurisdiction over the appeal.
ILB: This was a 2-1, 5/2/10 COA opinion - ILB summary here. Judge Darden's dissent concludes in part:
How could a constitutionally competent attorney allow his client to suffer the consequences that befell Baugh without advising him of the statutorily required hearing, at which he could subject the experts' conclusions to the crucible of cross-examination?
- 9:45 AM - David Hopper v. State of Indiana (13S01-1007-PC-399) - The Crawford Circuit Court rejected Hopper's post-conviction claim that he had not knowingly and intelligently waived his right to counsel before pleading guilty to operating a vehicle while intoxicated, a class A misdemeanor. The Court of Appeals reversed in Hopper v. State, 925 N.E.2d 499 (Ind. Ct. App. 2010), vacated. The Supreme Court has granted a petition to transfer the case and has assumed jurisdiction over the appeal.
ILB: This is a 4/28/10 COA opinion (ILB Summary here):
David Hopper appeals the denial of his petition for post-conviction relief (“PCR petition”), which challenged his conviction for Class A misdemeanor operating while intoxicated (“OWI”). We reverse and remand. The sole issue is whether the post-conviction court properly concluded that Hopper knowingly and intelligently waived his right to counsel before pleading guilty to the OWI charge.
Next Thursday, September 9th
- 9:00 AM - Killbuck Concerned Citizens Assoc., et al. v. J.M. Corp., et al (
48S00-1003-PL-158) - The Madison Superior Court ruled that IC 13-20-2-11, which relates to landfill permits, was unconstitutional and entered summary judgment for the owners, Appellees J.M. Corporation and Ralph Reed. In this civil direct appeal, nearby residents assert the trial court erred in declaring the statute unconstitutional and should have entered summary judgment for them. Appellees also raise several cross-appeal issues relating to the statute.
Webcasts of Supreme Court oral arguments are available here.
This week's oral arguments before the Court of Appeals (week of 8/30/10):
Tuesday, August 31st
- 1:00 PM - William Long vs. State of Indiana ( 41A04-0912-CR-743) - William Long appeals his conviction for theft, as a Class D felony. Long presents a single issue for our review on appeal, namely, whether the State presented sufficient evidence to support his conviction. In particular, Long contends that the State did not prove beyond a reasonable doubt that he exercised unauthorized control over items found in a furnished apartment he possessed pursuant to a lease to buy contract. The Scheduled Panel Members are: Chief Judge Baker, Judges Najam and Mathias. [Where: Court of Appeals Courtroom (WEBCAST)]
- 2:30 PM - Steven L. Beckham, et al vs. Lafayette Bank & Trust (79A05-0909-CV-554) - L. Steven Beckham, Jacquelyn K. Beckham, and Amos Agri Products, Inc. appeal the trial court's judgment in favor of Lafayette Bank and Trust Company on the Bank's complaint seeking to foreclose on certain real property. The Appellants present the following issues for our review on appeal: whether the trial court abused its discretion when it excluded evidence supporting the Appellants' allegations fraud and mistake; whether the trial court erred when it relied on excluded evidence to support its findings and conclusions; whether an affidavit submitted into evidence by Lafayette Bank was defective; whether the trial court had subject matter jurisdiction to order foreclosure regarding real estate located in another county; and whether the mortgages underlying the foreclosure action were defective for lack of consideration and inadequate description of the debt they secured. The Scheduled Panel Members are: Chief Judge Baker, Judges Najam and Mathias. [Where: Court of Appeals Courtroom (WEBCAST)]
Next week's oral arguments before the Court of Appeals (week of 9/6/10):
Next Wednesday, September 8th
- 1:30 PM - In Re: The Matter of Power of Attorney of Xenia A. Miller (03A01-0912-CV-586) - Accounting matters involving the propriety of interrelated acts performed by the Fiduciaries: when expending funds as attorneys-in-fact and when authorizing the release of funds from a trust for expenditures. The Scheduled Panel Members are: Chief Judge Baker, Judges Najam and Mathias. [Where: Court of Appeals Courtroom (WEBCAST)]
Next Thursday, September 9th
- 10:00 AM - The Village Pines at the Pines of Greenwood Homeowners Association, Inc., v. The Pines of Greenwood Homeowners Association, Inc. (41A01-0912-CV-568) - The Greenwood City Council approved The Pines of Greenwood ("The Pines") as a Planned Unit Development ("PUD"), enacting an ordinance to that effect. Thereafter, The Pines was developed, and two separate homeowners' associations were established therein: The Village Pines at the Pines of Greenwood Homeowners' Association, Inc. ("VP HOA"), and The Pines of Greenwood Homeowners' Association, Inc. ("POG HOA"). Subsequently, a dispute arose between the residents pertaining to the use of certain areas within The Pines. Pursuant to the terms of the ordinance, did the trial court err when it did not (1) enjoin enforcement by POG HOA of its covenants limiting the use of its common areas; (2) create covenants establishing a master homeowners' association for The Pines; and (3) order reformation of the existing covenants for The Pines' two homeowners' associations? The Scheduled Panel Members are: Judges Darden, Bradford and Brown. [Where: Court of Appeals Courtroom (WEBCAST)]
ONLY those Court of Appeals oral arguments presented in the Supreme or Court of Appeals Courtrooms will be accessible via videocast.
The past COA webcasts which have been webcast are accessible here.
NOTE: For a printable version of this list of upcoming oral arguments, click on the date in the next line. Then select "Print" from your browser.
Posted by Marcia Oddi on August 30, 2010 09:04 AM
Posted to Upcoming Oral Arguments