Wednesday, November 23, 2011
Ind. Decisions - Court of Appeals issues 5 today (and 10 NFP)
For publication opinions today (5):
In Commitment of T.S. v. Logansport State Hospital , an 11-page opinion, Judge Bailey concludes:
In summary, the evidence favorable to the trial court’s judgment supports the trial court’s decision to deny T.S.’s request to be removed from the SRP [Sexual Responsibility Program]. The fact that T.S. has yet to complete the program is not, by itself, a valid reason to excuse him from the program.3 In fact, T.S.’s continued failure to complete the SRP actually indicates that he is still in need of the treatment that the SRP offers. The State presented testimony from experts that T.S. was still in need of the treatment offered by the program and that the risks associated with the program were outweighed by the potential benefit that T.S. might receive. We therefore affirm the decision of the trial court.In Gordon B. Dempsey and Gordon B. Dempsey, PC v. Todd H. Belanger, a 15-page opinion, Judge Vaidik writes:
Gordon B. Dempsey and Gordon B. Dempsey, P.C. (collectively referred to as “Dempsey”), appeal the trial court’s denial of his motion to reinstate his complaint against attorney Todd H. Belanger. Although Dempsey’s complaint against Belanger had been dismissed on the merits in 2007, Dempsey contends that the Journey’s Account Statute and Indiana Trial Rule 60(B)(7) allow him to continue his action against Belanger. Concluding that Dempsey is not entitled to continue his action against Belanger and that the trial court properly awarded attorney’s fees to Belanger, we affirm the trial court in all respects. We also conclude that appellate attorney’s fees are warranted and therefore remand this case for the limited purpose of determining Belanger’s appellate attorney fees.In State of Indiana v. James D. Eichorst , a 7-page opinion, Judge Bradford writes:
State of Indiana appeals from the trial court's dismissal of a Class D felony Operating a Vehicle with a Blood Alcohol Concentration (“BAC”) of Greater than 0.08 percent with a Previous Conviction of Operating While Intoxicated (“OWI”) charge against Appellee-Defendant James Eichorst. We reverse and remand. * * *State of Indiana v. Kevin Lee Traver
In summary, we conclude that in order for an OWI or operating a vehicle with a BAC of over 0.08 percent charge to be enhanced to a Class D felony under the Indiana Code section 9-30-5-3, the State is required to prove that the defendant has a previous OWI conviction and that the conviction falls within the five-year period immediately preceding the commission of the instant offense. Consequently, the trial court erroneously dismissed the Class D felony operating a vehicle with a BAC of over 0.08 percent charge against Eichorst. We reverse and remand for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.
The judgment of the trial court is reversed, and the cause is remanded.
 * * * We also think it worth noting that today, we issue our opinions in the cases of State v. Traver, Cause No. 71A04-1102-CR-131, and State v. Wilson, Cause No. 71A05-1102-CR-130, in which we also reverse the dismissals of Class D felony operating a vehicle with an illegal BAC with a Previous Conviction of OWI charges. The State earlier moved to consolidate the three appeals, a motion which the motions panel of this court denied. We will not revisit the decision of the motions panel on this question, as Wilson's, Traver's, and Eichorst's arguments were not identical.
NFP civil opinions today (6):
Christina Francis v. City of Indianapolis (NFP) - Don't miss reading ...
NFP criminal opinions today (4):
Posted by Marcia Oddi on November 23, 2011 02:39 PM
Posted to Ind. App.Ct. Decisions