Wednesday, October 26, 2011
Ind. Decisions - Court of Appeals issues 6 today (and 23 NFP)
For publication opinions today (6):
In Anthony D. Laster v. State of Indiana , a 14-page opinion, Judge Crone concludes:
The trial court did not abuse its discretion by denying Laster’s motion for continuance; therefore, we affirm his convictions. We conclude that Laster’s sentence is inappropriate; therefore, we remand for the trial court to revise his sentence in accordance with this opinion.In Hassan Alsheik v. Alice Guerrero, Individually and as Admin. of the Estate of Israel Arcuri , a 32-page opinion, Judge Riley writes:
Appellant-Defendant, Hassan I. Alsheik, M.D. ( Dr. Alsheik), appeals the jury‘s award of damages in the amount of $1,165,000 to Appellee-Plaintiff, Alice Guerrero, Individually and as Administratrix of the Estate of I.A., Deceased (Guerrero), following Guerrero‘s Complaint for medical malpractice. * * *In Jeff Castetter, Tony Jones, David Strode and Matthew Hickey v. Lawrence Township , a 16-page opinion, Judge Bailey writes:
Based on the foregoing, we hold that (1) the trial court properly admitted the results of the second autopsy which was performed without notification to Dr. Alsheik; (2) the trial court did not abuse its discretion when it allowed Guerrero‘s pathologist to testify as an expert witness; and (3) the trial court did not abuse its discretion by admitting post-mortem photographs of the victim. On cross-appeal, we find that the trial court erred by denying Guerrero‘s request for pre-judgment interest and we remand to the trial court for determination of the pre-judgment interest.
The parties raise several issues for our review, which we restate, reorder, and consolidate into the following two issues: I. Whether the appeal is moot; and II. Whether the trial court erred when it denied the Appellants' motion for summary judgment and granted Lawrence's motion for summary judgment. * * *In Homestead Finance Corporation v. Southwood Manor L.P. d/b/a Village Green of Southwood Manor and d/b/a Village Green Mobile Home Park, an 8-page opinion, Judge Bradford writes:
[E]ven if an appeal is moot or no practical remedy is available to the parties, we can still review issues under the public interest exception when the case involves a question of great public importance which is likely to recur. * * *
The trial court did not err in denying summary judgment to the Appellants and granting summary judgment to Lawrence. The decisions of Lawrence and the Merit Commission were position-directed decisions, made in good faith, and not for the purpose of improperly demoting the Appellants for cause or any other purpose.
We conclude that Homestead was no longer subject to the Park Owner’s Lien statute once it released its liens on the mobile homes in question. As such, we reverse and remand with instructions to enter judgment in favor of Homestead such that it is not liable for any lot rent that accrued for any of the three lots in question after it released its liens on the mobile homes.In Danielle Garrett v. State of Indiana , an 8-page opinion, defendant pleaded a Barnes defense. Judge Friedlander writes:
Following a bench trial, Danielle Garrett was convicted of Battery on a Law Enforcement Officer and Resisting Law Enforcement, both class A misdemeanors. On appeal, Garrett presents one issue for our review: Is the evidence sufficient to support her conviction for resisting law enforcement? We affirm. * * *In Dustin T. Allen v. State of Indiana, a 7-page opinion, Judge Bradford writes:
Given that Garrett has failed to establish an unlawful entry and our conclusion that her resistance was not reasonable, the rule announced in Barnes is not applicable to the present case. Notwithstanding, the Barnes decision does not present an ex post facto problem in this case. It has long been established that battery against a police officer is not reasonable resistance under the common law. See Barnes v. State, 946 N.E.2d 572; Robinson v. State, 814 N.E.2d 704 (Ind. Ct. App. 2004). Thus, even prior to Barnes, Garrett’s conduct in forcefully combating the officer(s) after she acquiesced in their presence in her home was unlawful. The evidence presented was sufficient to prove that Garrett knowingly or intentionally forcibly resisted, obstructed, or interfered with a law enforcement officer while the officer was lawfully engaged in the execution of his duties.
Appellant-Defendant Dustin T. Allen brings this interlocutory appeal, claiming that the trial court abused its discretion in denying his motion to dismiss. Allen argues that the dismissal of criminal charges was warranted because he was improperly subjected to a successive prosecution which was prohibited under Indiana Code section 35-41-4-4 (“the Successive Prosecution Statute”). Concluding that prosecuting Allen on subsequent charges after he had already pled guilty to other charges is barred under the Successive Prosecution Statute, we reverse the trial court's judgment denying Allen's motion to dismiss.NFP civil opinions today (7):
NFP criminal opinions today (16):
Posted by Marcia Oddi on October 26, 2011 11:24 AM
Posted to Ind. App.Ct. Decisions