Friday, August 26, 2011
Ind. Decisions - Court of Appeals issues 3 today (and 11 NFP)
For publication opinions today (3):
In Jeremy A. Lane v. State of Indiana , a 14-page opinion, Judge Friedlander writes:
Following a jury trial, Jeremy Lane was convicted of Attempted Theft, a class DIn Zarumin Coleman v. State of Indiana , an 18-page opinion, Judge Barnes concludes:
felony, and subsequently sentenced to the maximum term of three years. Lane presents three issues for our review: 1. Did Lane’s trial counsel render ineffective assistance? 2. Does the rule of lenity require reversal of Lane’s conviction for attempted theft or reduction of his sentence in accordance with the proportionality clause? 3. Is Lane’s sentence inappropriate? We affirm.
We are compelled to conclude a sentence of sixty years on convictions for Class A felony conspiracy to commit robbery and Class B felony possession of a firearm by a SVF violate the single episode of criminal conduct rule for non-“crimes of violence.” We reverse and remand for the trial court to resentence Coleman to a total term of fifty-five years, in accordance with this opinion. As for that fifty-five year term, it is not inappropriate in light of the nature of the offenses and Coleman's character, and we refuse to reduce it further to a term of forty-five years.In Timothy-Patrick Treacy v. State of Indiana , a 12-page, 2-1 opinion, Judge Bradford writes:
In this somewhat unusual appeal, attorneys Paul Ogden and Patrick Stern ostensibly contend that the trial court erred in failing to provide Defendant Timothy-Patrick Treacy with representation at public expense. We conclude, however, that the true issue in this appeal has arisen from a fee dispute between Ogden and Stern and the Marion County Public Defender Agency (“the MCPDA”), none of whom is a proper party to this appeal. Concluding that we lack subject matter jurisdiction over this appeal, we dismiss. * * *NFP civil opinions today (5):
BAKER, J., concurs.
MAY, J., dissents with opinion. [which begins at p. 7 of 12] * * * The majority is correct that the lawyer who wrote Treacy’s brief wants the MCPDA to pay him. But I do not believe we can ignore, just because of counsel’s motivation, that Treacy’s brief did, in fact, argue Treacy was denied his constitutional right to trial counsel at public expense.
NFP criminal opinions today (6):
Posted by Marcia Oddi on August 26, 2011 12:59 PM
Posted to Ind. App.Ct. Decisions