Aaron Renzy Gordy was charged with four counts of battery after battering his girlfriend and causing serious injuries, including fractures. Following a bench trial, the court found him guilty on all counts but entered a judgment of conviction and sentence only on the Level 3 felony aggravated battery, merging the remaining counts without separate judgments. Gordy appealed, arguing that the trial court’s use of merger rather than vacatur violated double jeopardy protections. The Court of Appeals affirmed, holding that double jeopardy is implicated only by multiple judgments of conviction for the same offense, not by multiple findings of guilt followed by a single judgment and sentence. The court noted that the trial court had explicitly limited the judgment of conviction to one count and that the sentencing order satisfied statutory requirements for a judgment.
The case T.P. v. B.P. was an appeal from the Indiana trial court in a matter docketed under a juvenile paternity designation. The Court of Appeals of Indiana, in a per curiam-style disposition, affirmed the lower court's ruling in part and reversed it in part. Judges Baker, Kirsch, and Brown participated, with the decision issued on July 17, 2012; the excerpt provides no further details on the underlying facts, claims, or legal analysis supporting the partial affirmance and reversal.
In Winslow v. Fifer, divorced parents Julie Winslow and Larry Fifer disputed Winslow's failure to reimburse Fifer for her court-ordered share of college expenses for their academically gifted daughters, J.F. (attending Indiana State University) and A.F. (attending Purdue University), after both received scholarships that minimized costs. Following a 2009 order requiring each parent to cover a portion of the remaining expenses—with Winslow responsible for 37.19%—and a later mediated agreement, Winslow ignored Fifer's repeated documented requests for $1,455.48 covering J.F.'s 2010-2011 year, citing lack of knowledge about living arrangements. Fifer then filed a contempt action seeking reimbursement, attorney fees, and an order for Winslow to pay the same percentage toward A.F.'s expenses. The trial court found Winslow in contempt, ordered her to pay the amount owed plus $750 in fees, and extended the obligation to A.F.; the appeals court affirmed, holding that Winslow had notice of the lawful order, offered no valid excuse for noncompliance, and that the fees were properly limited to the contempt proceeding.
In Mies v. Steuben County Board of Zoning Appeals, homeowners hired a contractor to repair their lake cottage foundation and rebuild an attached deck and stairs that violated a local 20-foot lakefront setback ordinance, but the contractor failed to obtain required permits and the project exceeded repair limits for nonconforming structures. The Board of Zoning Appeals granted a post-construction variance for the stairs while conditioning approval on bringing the deck into compliance; the homeowners challenged the condition as unauthorized and argued the structures retained nonconforming status exempt from the ordinance. The court held that the BZA lacked statutory authority at the time to impose conditions on a development standards variance, rendering its entire decision a legal nullity that could not be severed, and that the new deck lost nonconforming status because the $8,950 replacement cost exceeded 50% of the original structure's value under the zoning ordinance. It therefore affirmed the trial court's reversal of the BZA decision and remand for a new hearing on the variance request.
In Dewitt v. Unsafe Building Department, City of Greendale, the appellant challenged a determination or order issued by the city's unsafe building department. The Indiana Court of Appeals reviewed the matter under case number 15A04-1110-MI-567 and issued a decision on July 3, 2012, affirming the lower court's ruling. Judge Baker authored the opinion, in which Judges Kirsch and Brown concurred. The provided excerpt contains no further factual background or legal analysis.
The case Roell v. American Senior Communities, LLP was an appeal to the Indiana Court of Appeals from a lower court ruling in a dispute involving the plaintiff and the defendant senior living facility operator. The court affirmed the trial court's decision in full. Judges Baker and Brown joined the majority opinion without reservation, while Judge Kirsch concurred only in part and dissented on other grounds.