Tuesday, May 07, 2013
Ind. Decisions - Court of Appeals issues 3 today (and 5 NFP)
For publication opinions today (3):
In Think Tank Software Development Corp. d/b/a Think Tank Networking Technologies Group, et al. v. Chester, Inc., Mike Heinhold, John Mario, Joel Parker, Thomas Guelinas, et al., a 17-page opinion, Sr. Judge Sharpnack writes:
In this interlocutory appeal, Think Tank Software Development Corporation d/b/a Think Tank Networking Technologies Group and Think Tank Information Systems (“Think Tank”) seeks review of the trial court’s grant of a motion to exclude testimony from its expert witness on economics and business valuation. * * *In In the Matter of the Termination of the Parent-Child Relationship of: A.D.S. & A.S. and L.S. v. The Indiana Department of Child Services , a 14-page opinion, Judges Mathias concludes:
Think Tank raises two issues, which we restate as:
I. Whether the trial court abused its discretion by granting Chester’s motion to exclude Think Tank’s expert witness testimony.
II. Whether this Court’s prior decision in this case requires clarification on the subject of damages. * * *
For the reasons stated above, we reverse the judgment of the trial court and remand for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.
We conclude there was sufficient evidence that there is a reasonable probability that the reasons for the Children’s placement outside the home will not be remedied and conclude that the totality of the evidence supports the trial court’s conclusion that termination of Mother’s parental rights is in the Children’s best interest. Affirmed.In Ryan Westlake v. State of Indiana , an 11-page opinion, Judge Crone writes:
Ryan Westlake was charged under two cause numbers with various offenses stemming from his sexual relationships with two teenage girls. Westlake entered a plea agreement whereby he pled guilty to class A felony child molesting and class B felony sexual misconduct with a minor in exchange for the dismissal of four other charges. Sentencing was left to the trial court’s discretion. The trial court identified one aggravating factor, Westlake’s criminal and juvenile record, and one mitigating factor, his mental health issues. Finding the factors to be of equal weight, the trial court imposed concurrent advisory sentences.NFP civil opinions today (2):
Westlake appeals his sentence, arguing that the trial court abused its discretion by failing to identify his guilty plea as a mitigating factor and that his sentence is inappropriate. The State argues that Westlake waived his right to appeal his sentence by signing a document titled “Advisement of Rights and Waiver” that was submitted to the court along with his plea agreement. We conclude that the waiver clearly forecloses Westlake’s right to challenge his sentence pursuant to Indiana Appellate Rule 7(B), but does not prohibit him from raising the issue of whether the trial court abused its discretion. However, because Westlake had already confessed to having sexual intercourse with the victims and received a substantial benefit in the form of dismissed charges, he has not persuaded us that the trial court abused its discretion by failing to identify his guilty plea as a mitigating factor. Therefore, we affirm.
NFP criminal opinions today (3):
Posted by Marcia Oddi on May 7, 2013 12:19 PM
Posted to Ind. App.Ct. Decisions