« Ind. Courts - "Disciplinary commission recommends action against Floyd County Prosecutor over David Camm case" | Main | Ind. Decisions - Supreme Court answers certified question from federal bankruptcy court »
Friday, March 20, 2015
Ind. Decisions - Court of Appeals issues 2 opinion(s) today (and 14 NFP memorandum decisions)
For publication opinions today (2):
In AM General, LLC v. James A. Armour , a 13-page, 2-1 opinion, Judge May writes:
AM General LLC appeals summary judgment for James A. Armour. As AM General designated evidence to refute Armour’s contentions in its response to Armour’s motion for summary judgment, the summary judgment was in error. We reverse and remand for trial. * * *In Robert L. Holleman v. State of Indiana , a 9-page opinion, Judge May writes:
Friedlander, J., concurs.
Vaidik, C.J., dissents with opinion. [which begins, at p. 8, and concludes]Contrary to the majority’s position, the fact that the Employment Agreement does not specify how the LTIP payment was to be made is not an issue of fact. In fact, neither party disputes it. Rather, it is a question of law. And because a promissory note is not a payment absent an express agreement to that effect and there is no express agreement here, AM General’s Note to Armour is not a payment pursuant to the Employment Agreement. I would therefore affirm summary judgment in favor of Armour.
In 1976, Robert Holleman committed felony murder. He was sentenced to life in prison. Holleman had parole hearings in 1996, 2000, 2005, and 2010, and was denied release each time. Holleman underwent psychiatric and psychological assessments in 1997. The parole board did not seek a more current report on Holleman’s psychological condition before the 2010 hearing, and a 2013 report indicated Holleman had progressed in some areas that were of concern in 1997. Holleman argues on appeal the parole board should have ordered an updated report and should have allowed Holleman to attend his public parole release hearing. * * *NFP civil decisions today (5):
As Holleman has not demonstrated an updated mental health evaluation could have affected the Board’s determination he should be denied parole because of the “Nature and Seriousness of the Crime (Seriousness of the Offense),” any error was harmless. We accordingly affirm.
Vaidik, C.J., concurs.
Barnes, J., concurs with separate opinion. [which begins at p. 8; some quotes] I write separately to express my opinion that, in a circumstance such as this, common sense and an overall aura of the concept called “justice” calls for a special look at this type of prisoner.
Holleman is a lifer. That is, he was sentenced to an indeterminate term of life in prison with the possibility of parole before the revisions to our sentencing scheme in 1977 and 1978 took effect and abolished such sentences. As we were reminded in oral argument, there are less than 200 of these prisoners remaining in the Department of Correction. Most are over sixty years of age, and more than a few are considerably older than that.
The point is that, in my opinion, when one of these prisoners comes to a parole hearing, the least the parole board could do would be to have a psychological report on the prisoner that is relatively recent. * * *
I do not mean to suggest that any time a parole hearing is held for one of these prisoners that an exhaustive psychological report must be compiled. But I do think the parole board should do better than it did here.
NFP criminal decisions today (9):
Posted by Marcia Oddi on March 20, 2015 11:03 AM
Posted to Ind. App.Ct. Decisions