« Ind. Law - "Proposed changes to the Parenting Time Guidelines available for review" | Main | Ind. Decisions - Supreme Court decides state employees back pay case »

Thursday, February 16, 2012

Ind. Decisions - Court of Appeals issues 2 today (and 7 NFP)

For publication opinions today (2):

In Raymond Dale Berryhill v. Parkview Hospital, a 13-page opinion, Judge Crone writes:

Raymond Dale Berryhill, who had suffered a stroke and other health problems, became agitated and fought with his wife. His family persuaded him to go to the emergency room at Parkview Hospital (“Parkview”), where he voluntarily checked himself in and underwent some medical tests. Berryhill became loud and aggressive. Berryhill's physician was concerned that he might be a danger to himself or others, so he ordered him to be taken to a secured room and sedated. Two Parkview security guards tried to calm Berryhill down, but he resisted and demanded to go home, so they escorted him to the secured room and placed him in restraints. After Berryhill's outburst, his wife filed an application for Berryhill to be detained and examined at Parkview Behavioral Health, from which he was released two days later.

Berryhill sued Parkview, alleging that the security guards' actions constituted false imprisonment. The trial court concluded that Parkview was immune from liability based on a statute that covers persons who assist in detentions. Berryhill now appeals, claiming that the immunity statute does not apply because he was not detained for purposes of the statute until after his wife filed the application for detention. We disagree with Berryhill and affirm the trial court's judgment.

In State of Indiana v. Elvis Holtsclaw, a 9-page, 2-1 opinion, Judge Bailey writes:
The State of Indiana appeals the denial of its motion to correct error following the trial court’s order granting defendant Elvis Holtsclaw’s (“Holtsclaw”) motion to suppress evidence. The parties raise two issues for our review, one of which we find dispositive: whether the State’s appeal should be dismissed as untimely. We dismiss. * * *

The trial court granted Holtsclaw’s motion to suppress on May 23, 2011. The State filed its notice of appeal of this order on August 18, 2011, well after the thirty day deadline. The State’s appeal is therefore untimely and must be dismissed. See Ind. App. R. 9(A)(5) (“Unless the Notice of Appeal is timely filed, the right to appeal shall be forfeited”). Dismissed.

DARDEN, J., concurs.
BAKER, J., dissents with opinion. [That begins, at p. 7] I respectfully dissent, and part ways with the majority’s decision to dismiss this appeal. More specifically, I cannot agree that Indiana Code section 35-38-4-2 precludes the State from appealing the trial court’s denial of its motion to correct error in this instance.

NFP civil opinions today (5):

Paternity of I.I.Y.; L.M.M. v. J.B.Y. (NFP)

The Matter of the Term. of the Parent-Child Rel. of J.D. and R.G. v. Indiana Dept. of Child Services (NFP)

City of Fort Wayne, Indiana v. Town of Huntertown, Indiana (NFP)

Roger L. Bushhorn v. State of Indiana (NFP)

Rosewood Management Company, Inc. v. Twyla Smith (NFP)

NFP criminal opinions today (3):

In State of Indiana v. Angela Bennett (NFP), a 6-page opinion, Judge Vaidik writes:

The State of Indiana appeals the trial court’s order granting Angela Bennett a restricted driver’s license. Because the record shows that Bennett has a prior conviction that disqualifies her from receiving a restricted license, we reverse. * * *

Bennett admitted that she was convicted of leaving the scene of an accident resulting in injury, despite her contrary affirmation in her petition that she had no disqualifying conviction. This conviction falls squarely within the list of offenses that disqualify Bennett from receiving a restricted driver’s license. Although Bennett argues and the trial court found that the facts of Bennett’s 1992 conviction were not sufficient to disqualify her from receiving a restricted driver’s license, the restricted-license statute does not provide a mechanism to evaluate the prior convictions or give the court the discretion to set aside otherwise disqualifying prior convictions. This is essentially what the trial court did here. The trial court’s authority to grant a restricted license is limited and arises from the statute. Because Bennett has a conviction under section 4(a), she is disqualified from receiving a restricted license under Section 9-30-10-9(e). Reversed and remanded.

Jason B. Forrest v. State of Indiana (NFP)

Jason J. Kucenski v. State of Indiana (NFP)

Posted by Marcia Oddi on February 16, 2012 09:55 AM
Posted to Ind. App.Ct. Decisions