« Ind.Law - More on: 2013 US News law school rankings out | Main | Ind. Decisions - 7th Circuit decides two Indiana cases today, one a reversal »

Tuesday, March 13, 2012

Ind. Decisions - Court of Appeals issues 2 today (and 11 NFP)

For publication opinions today (2):

In The Guardianship of Harold G. Gardner, Scott A. Gardner, Guardian v. Carl Prochno , a 9-page opinion, Judge Vaidik writes:

The guardianship of Harold D. Gardner and Harold’s guardian, Scott A. Gardner, appeal the trial court’s grant of summary judgment in favor of Carl Prochno. The designated evidence in this case shows that Prochno did not receive written notice to terminate his year-to-year tenancy to 240 acres of farm ground owned by Harold within three months of March 1, the generally accepted start date for farm leases. Because we conclude that Indiana Code chapter 32-31-1 requires written notice to terminate a year-to-year tenancy “not less than three (3) months before the expiration of the year,” we affirm the trial court’s grant of summary judgment in favor of Prochno. * * *

Our conclusion that written notice is required to terminate a year-to-year tenancy is consistent with the statute’s underlying policy and goals. That is, the purpose of a notice to terminate a tenancy is to reasonably inform the tenant that the tenancy will not be renewed for an additional year and will terminate at the end of its current term. See Pilotte v. Brummett, 165 Ind. App. 403, 332 N.E.2d 834, 840 (1975). Because Prochno did not receive timely written notice to terminate his year-to-year tenancy for 240 of the 480 acres, the trial court did not err in granting summary judgment in favor of Prochno.

In Kenneth Akers v. State of Indiana , a 10-page opinion, Chief Judge Robb writes:
Following a jury trial, Kenneth Akers was convicted of battery, resisting law enforcement, and possession of paraphernalia, all Class A misdemeanors. He was sentenced to one year in prison for each conviction, with the sentences for battery and resisting law enforcement to be served concurrently to each other and consecutive to his possession of paraphernalia sentence. Akers raises one issue for our review: whether Indiana Code section 35-50-1-2 violates the Equal Protection Clause of the United States Constitution or Article 1, Section 23 of the Indiana Constitution because the statute limits the imposition of consecutive sentences when someone is convicted of at least one felony, but no such statute exists limiting the imposition of consecutive sentences for those convicted of only misdemeanors. The State raises two issues for our review: whether Akers has waived the challenge he now brings, and whether Akers' three convictions were part of an episode of criminal conduct as Indiana Code section 35-50-1-2 requires. Concluding Akers' convictions did not arise out of an episode of criminal conduct and he therefore lacks standing to challenge the constitutionality of Indiana Code section 35-50-1-2, we affirm Akers' convictions. * * *

Akers' convictions were not part of a single episode of criminal conduct. Thus, Akers does not have standing to challenge Indiana Code section 35-50-1-2 because the statute would not apply to him even if it applied generally to defendants convicted of only misdemeanors. We therefore affirm Akers' convictions.

NFP civil opinions today (2):

Ralph Winfrey v. NLMP, Inc. and Witham Health Services (NFP)

Douglas R. Denmure, Personal Rep. of the Estate of Eugene D. Trester, Deceased v. Michael S. Gridley, Personal Rep. of the Estate of Alice F. Grindley, Deceased (NFP)

NFP criminal opinions today (9):

Alfred Taylor v. State of Indiana (NFP)

Matthew G. Fearnow v. State of Indiana (NFP)

Matthew Jordan v. State of Indiana (NFP)

Rondell Walker v. State of Indiana (NFP)

Joshua Love v. State of Indiana (NFP)

Elwin Hart v. State of Indiana (NFP)

Aaron Lee v. State of Indiana (NFP)

T.W. v. State of Indiana (NFP)

Michael Jones v. State of Indiana (NFP)

Posted by Marcia Oddi on March 13, 2012 10:47 AM
Posted to Ind. App.Ct. Decisions