Wednesday, November 13, 2013
Ind. Decisions - Court of Appeals issues 4 today (and 7 NFP)
For publication opinions today (4):
In Robert Kuntz, Kunodu, Inc., and B-K Interests, LLC v. EVI, LLC, a 17-page opinion, Chief Judge Robb writes:
Appellants Robert Kuntz, Kunodu, Inc., and B-K Interests, LLC (collectively, “Kuntz”) appeal the trial court’s issuance of a preliminary injunction and award of attorney fees in favor of EVI, LLC (“EVI”). Kuntz raises the following issues for our review: (1) whether the trial court erred in granting a preliminary injunction prohibiting Kuntz from competing against EVI; (2) whether the trial court improperly modified the terms of the parties’ covenant not to compete in conjunction with its grant of a preliminary injunction; (3) whether the trial court abused its discretion by awarding attorney fees to EVI; and (4) whether the trial court erred by entering a nunc pro tunc entry modifying its award of attorney fees for EVI.In State of Indiana v. Molly Gray, a 12page opinion, Judge Bradford writes:
We conclude that the trial court did not abuse its discretion by granting a preliminary injunction against Kuntz; however, the trial court improperly extended the duration of the parties’ covenant not to compete. Further, we conclude that the trial court erred by awarding attorney fees to EVI at this stage of the proceedings. Accordingly, we affirm in part, reverse in part, and remand for further proceedings.
Cannelton Police Department Officer Micah Jackson initiated a traffic stop of Appellee-Defendant Molly Gray, during which he conducted a free-air canine sniff around Gray s vehicle. After the canine alerted to the presence of contraband, Officer Jackson searched the vehicle and found a bag of methamphetamine. Appellant-Plaintiff the State of Indiana charged Gray with Class D felony possession of methamphetamine. (App. 1, 10) Gray filed a motion to suppress the evidence, arguing that (1) the initial stop was pretextual and without cause and (2) that Officer Jackson lacked reasonable suspicion to delay the traffic stop in order to conduct a canine sniff, in violation of the Fourth Amendment. (App. 2, 25) The trial court granted the motion, and the State now appeals. Without addressing the validity of the initial stop, we conclude that the free-air canine sniff was not conducted incidental to the traffic stop and so required reasonable suspicion to justify increasing the duration of the stop. Finding that Officer Jackson lacked reasonable suspicion, we hold that the seizure was a violation of the Fourth Amendment and that the trial court did not err in suppressing the evidence. We affirm.In David Williams v. State of Indiana, a 21-page opinion, Judge Mathias writes:
David Williams (“Williams”) was convicted in Putnam Circuit court of eight counts of Class A felony child molesting and one count of Class B felony incest and was sentenced to an aggregate term of ninety-nine years. Williams appeals and presents four issues, which we restate as:In Charles Cole v. State of Indiana , an 8-page opinion, Judge Brown writes:
I. Whether the trial court abused its discretion in admitting into evidence Williams’s statement to the police;
II. Whether Williams’s convictions for child molesting and incest constitute double jeopardy;
III. Whether the trial court abused its discretion in sentencing Williams; and
IV. Whether Williams’s sentence is inappropriate in light of the nature of the offense and the character of the offender.
We affirm. * * *
[Conclusion] The trial court did not abuse its discretion in admitting Williams’s statement to the police into evidence because his statement was not coerced. Williams’s convictions for Class A felony child molesting and Class B felony incest do not constitute double jeopardy because there was no reasonable possibility that these convictions were based upon the same actual evidence. Lastly, even if the trial court did abuse its discretion in its consideration of certain aggravating factors in sentencing Williams, we need not remand for resentencing because the sentence imposed by the trial court is not inappropriate.
Cole asserts that the court abused its discretion by increasing his bail to $10,000 sua sponte without a showing of good cause for the increase, that no new evidence supported the court’s decision, and that the bail amount for a class D felony is unusually high and twice as high as the maximum provided by the bail schedule under the Marion County local rules. The State maintains that the court did not abuse its discretion in setting Cole’s bail. * * *NFP civil opinions today (3):
For the foregoing reasons, we conclude that the trial court abused its discretion in increasing Cole’s bail from $2,500 surety to $10,000 surety, and we therefore reverse the trial court.
In the Matter of E.B. (Minor Child), Child in Need of Services and R.K. (Mother) v. The Indiana Department of Child Services(NFP)
NFP criminal opinions today (4):
Posted by Marcia Oddi on November 13, 2013 11:54 AM
Posted to Ind. App.Ct. Decisions