Friday, June 10, 2016
Ind. Decisions - Court of Appeals issues 1 opinion(s) today (and 10 NFP memorandum decision(s))
For publication opinions today (1):
In Timothy A. Williamson v. U.S. Bank National Association, a 15-page opinion, Judge Pyle writes:
Timothy A. Williamson (“Williamson”) appeals the trial court’s grant of summary judgment in favor of U.S. Bank National Association (“U.S. Bank”) on its mortgage foreclosure complaint. He also appeals the trial court’s denial of his motion to strike U.S. Bank’s summary judgment reply and second designation of evidence. He argues that the trial court abused its discretion when it denied his motion to strike because U.S. Bank’s reply and second designation of evidence were untimely. As for the trial court’s grant of summary judgment on U.S. Bank’s mortgage foreclosure complaint, Williamson asserts that there was a mistake of fact when he and U.S. Bank executed the underlying loan agreement and, accordingly, the trial court should have reformed or rescinded the agreement. Alternatively, he argues that the trial court erred in granting summary judgment on the mortgage foreclosure because the bank breached the mortgage agreement first and therefore could not recover under contractual principles.NFP civil decisions today (2):
Because we conclude that: (1) the trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying Williamson’s motion to strike because it was untimely; (2) the trial court did not err in granting summary judgment, we affirm the trial court’s decision.
NFP criminal decisions today (8):
In Myles K. Martin, Jr. v. State of Indiana (rehearing), a 3-page decision which the caption labels "MEMORANDUM DECISION ON REHEARING," Judge Najam writes:
Myles K. Martin, Jr. petitions for rehearing following our memorandum decision in which we affirmed his convictions. See Martin v. State, No. 82A01-1507-CR-966 (Ind. Ct. App. Mar. 17, 2016). We grant Martin’s petition to address the following issue: whether the trial court violated the prohibition against double jeopardy under the Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution when the court entered its judgment of conviction against Martin for both resisting law enforcement, as a Class D felony, and resisting law enforcement, as a Class A misdemeanor. We agree with Martin that the entry of the judgment of conviction on both of those offenses violated double jeopardy principles. Accordingly, we grant Martin’s petition for rehearing and reverse his conviction for resisting law enforcement, as a Class A misdemeanor, and we remand with instructions that the trial court vacate that conviction and its related sentence. In all other respects, we affirm our original memorandum decision. * * *
As we recently explained, when a defendant flees from law enforcement by a vehicle and then exits that vehicle to continue fleeing by foot, the defendant has committed one continuous act of resisting law enforcement. Lewis v. State, 43 N.E.3d 689, 691 (Ind. Ct. App. 2015) (following Arthur v. State, 824 N.E.2d 383, 387 (Ind. Ct. App. 2005), trans. denied). Martin’s facts are substantively identical to those in Lewis and Arthur. Accordingly, we grant Martin’s petition for rehearing to clarify our original memorandum decision and correct this constitutional error. We reverse Martin’s conviction for resisting law enforcement, as a Class A misdemeanor, and we remand with instructions that the trial court vacate that conviction and its related sentence.
Posted by Marcia Oddi on June 10, 2016 10:58 AM
Posted to Ind. App.Ct. Decisions