« Ind. Decisions - Still more on: Notre Dame sues feds over requirement to provide insurance coverage for contraceptives | Main | Catch-up: What did you miss over the weekend from the ILB? »
Monday, January 28, 2013
Ind. Decisions - Upcoming oral arguments this week and next
This week's oral arguments before the Supreme Court (week of (1/28/13):
Thursday, January 31st
- 9:00 AM - John W. Schoettmer, et al. v. Jolene Wright, et al. (49S04-1210-CT-607) - Following an automobile collision between Schoettmer and an employee of South Central Community Action Program, Inc., Schoettmer and the defendants’ insurer engaged in settlement negotiations that ultimately proved unsuccessful. Schoettmer did not separately provide notice of his claim to the defendants. After Schoettmer filed suit, the defendants moved for summary judgment based on Schoettmer’s noncompliance with the notice provisions of the Tort Claims Act. The trial court granted summary judgment to the defendants, and a divided panel of the Court of Appeals affirmed. Schoettmer v. Wright, 971 N.E.2d 118 (Ind. Ct. App. 2012), vacated. The Supreme Court has granted a petition to transfer the case and has assumed jurisdiction over the appeal.
ILB: This was a July 13, 2012, 2-1 COA opinion, where the majority wrote: "It is undisputed that, as a designated community action agency, South Central is a political subdivision pursuant to the ITCA. See IC 34-13-3-22. The ITCA bars tort claims against a political subdivision unless notice of the claim is filed with the governing body of that political subdivision within 180 days after the loss occurs.".
- 9:45 AM - State of Indiana v. Russell Oney (49S05-1212-CR-668) - In 2002, Oney pleaded guilty to being an habitual traffic violator (“HTV”). Later, one of the three underlying convictions was set aside. In post-conviction proceedings relating to the 2002 HTV guilty plea, the Marion Superior Court granted Oney’s request to withdraw the guilty plea and set aside the conviction. The Court of Appeals reversed in State v. Oney, 974N.E.2d 1054 (Ind. Ct. App. 2012), vacated. The Supreme Court has granted a petition to transfer the case and has assumed jurisdiction over the appeal.
ILB: This is a Sept. 24, 2012 COA opinion where the State presented a single issue for review: whether the trial court erred when it vacated Oney’s 2002 guilty plea to the HTV conviction on the ground that one of the predicate offenses to the HTV conviction had been reversed in post-conviction proceedings with the agreement of the State.
- 10:30 AM - Darrell Lawrence v. State of Indiana (49S02-1211-CR-620) - Lawrence was charged with possession of cocaine and resisting law enforcement. The Marion Superior Court ruled that the cocaine taken from Lawrence was inadmissible because the police search had been improper, and the trial court dismissed the drug charge. The trial court denied Lawrence’s motion to exclude, as “fruit of the poisonous tree,” evidence of Lawrence’s actions during the search that led to the charge of resisting law enforcement. Lawrence was convicted of resisting, and both sides appealed. The Court of Appeals reversed the conviction in a not-for-publication opinion, concluding that the evidence of resisting should not have been admitted. Lawrence v. State, No. 49A02-1110-CR-938, slip op. (Ind. Ct. App. Aug. 7, 2012), vacated. The Supreme Court has granted a petition to transfer the case and has assumed jurisdiction over the appeal.
ILB: This is an Aug. 7, 2012 NFP COA opinion, concluding that "the evidence presented by the State to support his conviction for resisting law enforcement was improperly admitted as fruit of the poisonous tree."
Thursday, February 7th
- 9:00 AM - Ronnie Jamel Rice v. State of Indiana (45S00-1206-CR-343) - Rice pled guilty to murder, felony murder and robbery. The Lake Superior Court sentenced him to life imprisonment without the possibility of parole for the murder. In this direct appeal, Rice argues the trial court erred when it considered non-statutory aggravators and that the LWOP sentence should be revised pursuant to Appellate Rule 7(B).
- 9:45 AM - Ian McCullough v. State of Indiana (49A02-1106-PC-571) - After McCullough’s convictions for child molesting were affirmed on direct appeal in McCullough v. State, No. 49A02-0805-CR-411, slip op. (Ind. Ct. App. Jan. 13, 2009), the Marion Superior Court denied post-conviction relief. A divided Court of Appeals affirmed in McCullough v. State, 973 N.E.2d 62 (Ind. Ct. App. 2012), trans. pending. McCullough has petitioned the Supreme Court to accept jurisdiction over the appeal.
ILB: This is an August 27, 2012, 2-1 COA opinion.
- 10:30 AM - Joseph Peters v. State of Indiana (59A01-1108-CR-330) - Peters filed a motion to dismiss child molesting charges on grounds the State had failed to bring him to trial in a timely manner. The Orange Circuit Court denied the motion. The Court of Appeals affirmed on interlocutory appeal in an unpublished decision. Peters v. State, No. 59A01-1108-CR-330, slip op. (Ind. Ct. App. Jul. 31, 2012), trans. pending. Peters has petitioned the Supreme Court to accept jurisdiction over the appeal, asserting that the Court of Appeals erred in its analysis of his rights to a speedy trial under the Sixth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution and Article 1, Section 12 of the Indiana Constitution and Barker v. Wingo, 407 U.S. 514 (1972).
ILB: This is a July 31, 2012, NFP COA opinion.
Webcasts of Supreme Court oral arguments are available here.
This week's oral arguments before the Court of Appeals (week of 1/28/13):
Wednesday, January 30th
- 1:30 PM - State of Indiana vs. I. T. (20A03-1202-JV-76) In April 2006, I.T. was adjudicated a delinquent child for committing an act that would constitute class B felony child molesting if committed by an adult. As part of its dispositional order, the juvenile court ordered I.T. to participate in an outpatient juvenile sex-offender treatment program and to undergo polygraph examinations to ensure his compliance with the rules of probation and the treatment program. During one of these polygraph examinations, I.T. admitted to sexually abusing two additional children. Based on these disclosures, police conducted an investigation and obtained a statement from one of the alleged victims implicating I.T. Police also conducted an interview of I.T., during which I.T. again confessed. Based on this information, the State filed an additional delinquency petition against I.T. alleging that he had committed acts that would be class B and class C felony child molesting if committed by an adult. I.T. successfully moved to dismiss the petition on the basis that his statements during the polygraph examination and all evidence derived therefrom were inadmissible. The State now appeals. The Scheduled Panel Members are: Judges Friedlander, Brown and Pyle. [Where: Court of Appeals Courtroom (WEBCAST)]
Thursday, February 7th
- 11:00 AM - Jerome Kleber vs. Carla (Kleber) Butorac ( 02A03-1207-DR-321) Jerome Kleber and Carla Butorac divorced in 1994, at which time the trial court approved the parties’ marital settlement agreement. Included in the agreement was a provision stating the parties’ intent to provide for their four children’s post-high school education. In 2009, various motions were filed, and the trial court ultimately ordered Kleber to pay Butorac for one-third of the cost of their children’s post-high school education, offset by a retroactive decrease in his child support obligation, and attorney’s fees. On appeal, Kleber argues the trial court erred in ordering him to pay Butorac for one-third of their children’s post-high school education and for her attorney’s fees. The Scheduled Panel Members are: Chief Judge Robb, Judges May and Pyle. [Where: Court of Appeals Courtroom (WEBCAST)]
ONLY those Court of Appeals oral arguments presented in the Supreme or Court of Appeals Courtrooms will be accessible via videocast.
The past COA webcasts which have been webcast are accessible here.
NOTE: For a printable version of this list of upcoming oral arguments, click on the date in the next line. Then select "Print" from your browser.
Posted by Marcia Oddi on January 28, 2013 07:00 AM
Posted to Upcoming Oral Arguments