« Ind. Courts - Online public access to e-filed public documents to be studied by Indiana Court [Updated twice] | Main | Ind. Decisions - Court of Appeals issues 1 opinion(s) today (and 4 NFP memorandum decision(s)) »

Thursday, February 04, 2016

Ind. Decisions - Court of Appeals issues 2 opinion(s) today (and 5 NFP memorandum decision(s))

For publication opinions today (2):

In State of Indiana v. Chad T. Mooney, Brittany McCool, a 7-page opinion, Judge Robb writes:

In this consolidated appeal, the State of Indiana appeals the trial court’s denial of its motions for relief from judgment. Finding no error, we affirm. * * *

The State’s motions invoked subsections (B)(1) and (B)(8) of Trial Rule 60, which permit relief upon a showing of “mistake, surprise, or excusable neglect,” or any other reason warranting relief from the judgment. A party filing a motion under subsections (B)(1) or (B)(8) must also “allege a meritorious claim or defense.” Ind. Trial Rule 60(B). However, a motion for relief from judgment may not be used as a substitute for direct appeal. Gertz v. Estes, 922 N.E.2d 135, 138 (Ind. Ct. App. 2010). “Trial Rule 60(B) motions address only the procedural, equitable grounds justifying relief from the legal finality of a final judgment, not the legal merits of the judgment.” In re Paternity of P.S.S., 934 N.E.2d 737, 740 (Ind. 2010). * * *

The State’s motions—filed on November 25, 2014—did not identify any “mistake, surprise, or excusable neglect” suffered by the State, nor any other reason justifying relief from the judgment. At the hearing on its motions, the State briefly mentioned what it characterized as “delay” in the trial court sending the relevant orders to the BMV * * * But we cannot agree the act of re-sending the orders to the BMV constituted “delay.” There is nothing in the record suggesting the BMV did not receive the orders the first time they were sent, and the BMV offered no explanation for why it waited months to intervene in either case. * * *

The State has not established prima facie error in the trial court’s denial of its motions for relief from judgment. The State failed to identify any circumstances warranting relief under Trial Rule 60(B)(1) or (B)(8), and its motions addressed only the legal merits of the judgments. We will not entertain the State’s attempt to resurrect an untimely appeal.

In Landon T. Harbert and Malcolm M. Smith v. State of Indiana, a 24-page opinion, Judge Baker writes:
Landon Harbert appeals his conviction for Robbery, a class B felony, and the twenty-year sentence imposed by the trial court. Malcolm Smith, Harbert’s co-defendant, appeals his convictions for two counts of Robbery, a class B felony. * * * Finding no error, we affirm.
NFP civil decisions today (5):

In Re: the Marriage of: Renita A. Marek and Edward Marek (mem. dec.)

Jeffrey T. Boring v. Lisa K. Boring (mem. dec.)

In the Matter of the Termination of the Parent-Child Relationship of: C.P. & M.P. (Minor Children) and S.S. (Mother) v. The Indiana Department of Child Services (mem. dec.)

Kulwinder Kaur v. Hardev S. Bal (mem. dec.)

Michael C. Feldhake v. Meryle Lowe (Feldhake) (mem. dec.)

NFP criminal decisions today (0):

Posted by Marcia Oddi on February 4, 2016 11:14 AM
Posted to Ind. App.Ct. Decisions