« Courts - "Obama judges tip appeals courts to Democrats"; 7th Circuit unaffected | Main | Ind. Courts - AG Zoeller appeals high fence hunting ruling to the COA »

Thursday, May 29, 2014

Ind. Decisions - Court of Appeals issues 3 today (and 17 NFP)

For publication opinions today (3):

In Indianapolis Metropolitan Police Department v. Donald A. Prout, a 14-page opinion, Judge Crone writes:

Donald A. Prout, a full-time deputy with the Marion County Sheriff’s Office (“MCSO”), also worked security part time at a grocery store and a bus station. An MCSO detective was asked to investigate accusations that Prout was being paid by MCSO while he was working his other jobs. The detective obtained documents from MCSO and Prout’s other employers indicating that his work schedules overlapped on four occasions. Prout was asked to explain the discrepancies, but he refused. The detective filed a probable cause affidavit, which resulted in Prout being charged with four counts of class D felony theft. Those charges were later dismissed due to unspecified evidentiary problems.

Prout filed a petition to expunge his arrest record, asserting that the charges against him were dropped because no offense was committed and there was no probable cause. The Indianapolis Metropolitan Police Department (“IMPD”) objected to Prout’s petition. At a hearing on the petition, Prout presented evidence that his work schedules had not overlapped. The trial court issued an order granting Prout’s petition, finding that he had committed no offense and that no probable cause existed to support either the filing or the prosecution of the charges.

On appeal, IMPD argues that the issue of whether probable cause existed to file charges is irrelevant and that Prout failed to carry his burden to establish that no probable cause existed when the charges were dismissed and that no offense was committed. We conclude that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in concluding that no offense was committed and therefore affirm.

In Floyd William Treece v. State of Indiana, a 14-page opinion, Judge Crone writes:
Treece appeals the revocation of his community corrections placement. He argues that the trial court abused its discretion in revoking his community corrections placement because (1) the TCCC did not have the authority to reject his placement in community corrections for a rule violation he committed while assigned to the CTP because the CTP is a DOC program and the DOC is not statutorily authorized to reject an inmate’s placement in community corrections as a disciplinary action; and (2) the trial court failed to consider the progress he made toward rehabilitation during his DOC commitment. We conclude that the CTP is a TCCC program and that the statutes governing the DOC’s disciplinary actions do not apply to TCCC. Therefore, TCCC had the authority to reject Treece from his placement in community corrections for a violation he committed while in the CTP. We also conclude that the trial court was not required to consider his progress toward rehabilitation when determining whether his rule violation warranted revocation of his community corrections placement. We conclude that he committed an act of violence, and therefore the trial court did not abuse its discretion in revoking his community corrections placement. Therefore, we affirm. We also remand for the trial court to clarify its sentencing order.
In Guardianship of Phyllis D. Hayes, an Adult, Joann Hayes and Dianna Hale v. Kenneth J. Hayes, a 17-page opinion, Judge Barnes writes:
Jo Ann Hayes and Dianna Hale appeal the trial court’s denial of their motion for summary judgment and the trial court’s order concluding that the execution of an option contract by their mother, Phyllis Hayes, to their brother, Kenneth Hayes, was enforceable. We affirm. * * *

Jo Ann and Dianna have not established that the trial court erroneously denied their motion for summary judgment or that the trial court’s conclusion that Phyllis was not acting under undue influence when she executed the option contract was clearly erroneous. We affirm.

NFP civil opinions today (4):

Holly and Christopoher Dunn, Holly and Benjamin Rothenbush, and Tomi and Michael Meyer v. Kathryn Davis and For the Children Medical Mission Foundation, Inc. (NFP)

Anthony Flores v. Blake A. Hudson (NFP)

R.C. v. J.Q. (NFP)

In re the Paternity of T.T.: D.T. v. S.B. (NFP)

NFP criminal opinions today (13):

Mauricio Reyes-Flores v. State of Indiana (NFP)

Lance Stover v. State of Indiana (NFP)

Ray A. Chamorro v. State of Indiana (NFP)

Danny Shane Claspell v. State of Indiana (NFP)

Dejuan D. Cox v. State of Indiana (NFP)

Robert L. McFall v. State of Indiana (NFP)

Akeem Turner v. State of Indiana (NFP)

Steven Sullivan v. State of Indiana (NFP)

Gabriel Senteney v. State of Indiana (NFP)

Latroya Rucker v. State of Indiana (NFP)

Betty Woods v. State of Indiana (NFP)

Dennis Knight v. State of Indiana (NFP)

Mardel Hill v. State of Indiana (NFP)

Posted by Marcia Oddi on May 29, 2014 02:34 PM
Posted to Ind. App.Ct. Decisions