« Ind. Decisions - Supreme Court decides three today | Main | Ind. Decisions - 7th Circuit decides two Indiana cases today »

Tuesday, April 05, 2016

Ind. Decisions - Court of Appeals issues 2 opinion(s) today (and 7 NFP memorandum decision(s))

For publication opinions today (2):

In Pain Medicine and Rehabilitation Center and Anthony Alexander, M.D. v. State of Indiana , a 7-page opinion, Judge Najam writes:

In February of 2015, the State, acting through its Medicaid Fraud Control Unit and in accordance with various federal, state, and local agencies, opened a criminal cause of action against Pain Medicine and Rehabilitation Center and Dr. Anthony Alexander (collectively, “PMRC”) for the sole purpose of enforcing a subpoena duces tecum against PMRC. In response, PMRC filed a motion for a preliminary injunction against the State, which the trial court denied without a hearing. PMRC purports to appeal from that judgment, but we hold that PMRC’s motion in the trial court was not procedurally correct and, in turn, that this appeal is not properly before us. * * *

[W]e agree with the State that PMRC’s appeal is not properly before us. First, the trial court’s general denial of PMRC’s procedurally incorrect motion was not a final judgment. Again, a final judgment “disposes of all issues as to all parties thereby ending the particular case.” Ind. Newspapers, Inc., 980 N.E.2d at 857 (quotations omitted). Here, the only dispute the trial court has been asked to rule on is a discovery dispute. And to conclude that this limited cause of action resolved “all issues as to all parties thereby ending the particular case” would mean that all discovery disputes brought pursuant to Indiana Code Section 4-6-10-3 would be immediately appealable, contrary to long-standing Indiana law that prohibits “an appeal as of right from every order to produce documents during discovery.” State v. Hogan, 582 N.E.2d 824, 825 (Ind. 1991). Second, as explained above, while PMRC styled its motion in the trial court as a motion for a preliminary injunction, that was incorrect. Accordingly, PMRC is not entitled to an appeal as of right under Indiana Appellate Rule 14(A)(5). Because there is no other basis for appellate jurisdiction, we dismiss.

In Jennings Daugherty v. State of Indiana , a 20-page opinion, Judge Riley concludes:
Based on the foregoing, we conclude that Daugherty was not denied the effective assistance of appellate counsel when counsel did not raise the double enhancement issue. However, we conclude that Daugherty was denied the effective assistance of appellate counsel when counsel did not raise the issue of statutory limitation for consecutive sentences arising out of a single episode of criminal conduct. Affirmed, in part, reversed, in part, and remanded for resentencing consistent with this decision.
NFP civil decisions today (2):

Jordan D. Christie v. Tamara L. Waller (mem. dec.)

Phillip Gray v. YMCA of Greater Indianapolis, Stacy Meyers, Greg Hiland, Christopher Butler, and Aquatics Coordinator of the Fishers YMCA (mem. dec.)

NFP criminal decisions today (5):

Thomas A. Conway v. State of Indiana (mem. dec.)

Robert Kesterke v. State of Indiana (mem. dec.)

Melvin Macon v. State of Indiana (mem. dec.)

Samuel Goldsmith v. State of Indiana (mem. dec.)

Tommy Borders v. State of Indiana (mem. dec.)

Posted by Marcia Oddi on April 5, 2016 01:45 PM
Posted to Ind. App.Ct. Decisions