OPINION
BAILEY, Judge
Case Summary
Mary Carter, defendant below, appeals the trial court's grant of additur in favor of Tracy and Monty Jones, plaintiffs below, and the court's denial of Carter's motion to enforce a qualified settlement offer. We dismiss this appeal for lack of jurisdiction.
Issue
Carter presents several issues, the following of which is dispositive: Did the trial court's failure to rule on the Joneses's motion to correct error in a timely manner render its belated order granting additur a ° nullity? 1
Facts and Procedural History
On July 29, 1994, Tracy Jones was driving in her car when it was rear-ended by Carter's vehicle. The Joneses sued Carter for Tracy's alleged personal injuries, and Monty's alleged loss of consortium. On May 5, 2000, Carter offered to settle Tracy's claim for $7,500.00, and Monty's claim for $1.00. The offers were apparently rejected, and the case went to trial on June 15, 2000. Carter conceded her lability, but contested the Joneses's damages. The jury awarded Tracy $5,000.00, but found against Monty. (R. 7.) On June 22, 2000, the Joneses filed their "Motion to Correct Error/Additur," asking the court to either enter judgment greater than that contemplated by the jury, or to grant a new trial. The court held hearings on the motion on July 14 and August 11, 2000. (R. 7, 562.) On October 3, 2000, the court purportedly granted the Joneses's motion for additur, finding that the jury's award was inadequate as a matter of law, and adding $50,000.00, for a total judgment of $55,000.00. Carter filed her praccipe on October 28, 2000, and now appeals.
Discussion and Decision
A. Standard lof Review
A trial court has considerable discretion to grant or deny motions to correct [346]*346error. Dughaish ex rel. Dughaish v. Cobb, 729 N.E.2d 159, 167 (Ind.Ct.App.2000), trams. denied. We will reverse only if the court has abused its discretion. Id. An abuse of discretion will be found when the trial court's action is against the logic and effect of the facts and circumstances before it, and when the court's decision is without reason or is based upon impermissible reasons or considerations. Id.
B. Analysis
Carter argues that the court's order granting additur is void because it was not issued in a timely manner. The Joneses appropriately sought additur under Trial Rule 59, which provides that a motion to correct error is a prerequisite for appeal "when a party seeks to address ... [a] claim that a jury's verdict is excessive or inadequate." Trial Rule 53.8(A) provides that
[in the event a court ... fails to rule on a Motion to Correct Error within thirty (30) days after it was heard or forty-five (45) days after it was filed, if no hearing is required, the pending Motion to Correct Error shall be deemed denied. An appeal shall be initiated by filing the notice of appeal under [former] Appellate Rule 2(A) [now Appellate Rule 9] within thirty (80) days after the Motion to correct Error is deemed denied.
"A trial court has no power to rule on a motion to correct error after the time designated by the rule has passed, and any subsequent ruling is a nullity." Johnson v. Johnson County Bd. of Zoning Appeals, 732 N.E.2d 865, 865-866 (Ind.Ct.App.2000). The court heard the Joneses's motion on July 14 and August 11, 2000, but did not rule on it until October 2, 2000. The motion was therefore "deemed denied" under Trial Rule 53.3 as of September 11, 2000, thirty days after the August 11 hearing. Carter thus asserts that the court's October 2, 2000 ruling granting additur was a nullity and must be reversed.
The Joneses respond by asserting that the court's order granting additur is not a nullity, but is simply voidable under the exception to the Trial Rule 58.3 deadlines delineated in Cavinder Elevators, Inc. v. Hall, 726 N.E.2d 285, 289 (Ind.2000)2 In Cavinder, the Indiana Supreme Court held that a trial court's untimely ruling on a motion to correct errors may be voidable rather than a nullity. Id. The court, however, expressly stated that this exception to Trial Rule 58.3's deadlines would apply only when the party filing the motion to correct errors timely pursues an appeal within thirty days of the deemed denial of the motion. Id. Here, the Joneses did not commence an appeal under former Appellate Rule 2(A) by October 11, 2000, thirty days after the deemed denial of their motion as required by Trial Rule 58.3, and Carter urges us to hold that the exception set out in Cavinder does not apply.
The Joneses claim that they promptly appealed the deemed denial of their motion to correct error, and thus fall within the Cavinder exception, by characterizing their status before this court as "cross-appellants" under Trial Rule 59(G) with regard to the issues raised by Carter. This argument misunderstands and misconstrues both Cavinder and the applicable trial rules. First, the Joneses are not cross-appellants under Trial Rule 59(G). That rule permits a party responding to an [347]*347appeal taken in lieu of a motion to correct error to defend against that motion by raising any available ground for the first time upon appeal, and to raise any grounds as cross-errors. This does not help the Joneses, because aside from characterizing themselves as "cross-appellants," they have not identified any action of the trial court they claim to be error. In any event, even if the Joneses had asserted eross-errors here, they unquestionably failed to commence an appeal within thirty days of the deemed denial of their motion, the only fact pertinent to the applicability of the Cavinder exception. The exception therefore does not apply, and the court's untimely order granting additur was a nullity.
As a result, we lack jurisdiction over this appeal. Former Appellate Rule 2(A), in effect until December 31, 2000, required a party seeking an appeal to file a pracecipe within thirty days of the entry of final judgment. As noted above, however, when a party files a motion to correct error, Trial Rule 58.3 provides that the appeal must be commenced within thirty days from the date the court rules on the motion, or within thirty days after the motion is deemed denied. In either case, the filing of the praecipe in a timely manner is a jurisdictional prerequisite to any appeal, and the failure to commence an appeal in a timely manner deprives us of jurisdiction over the remainder of the appeal, and mandates dismissal. See Roscoe v. Roscoe, 673 N.E.2d 820, 821 (Ind.Ct.App.1996) (dismissing appeal for lack of jurisdiction after holding the trial court's belated ruling on a motion to correct errors a nullity, because the party commene-ing appeal failed to file a praccipe within thirty days of the deemed denial of the motion to correct errors). Here, neither party commenced an appeal within thirty days after the Joneses's motion to correct errors was deemed denied by virtue of the trial court's failure to rule upon it, and both parties' rights to an appeal were waived. We accordingly lack jurisdiction, and the appeal must be dismissed.3
Appeal dismissed.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
OPINION
BAILEY, Judge
Case Summary
Mary Carter, defendant below, appeals the trial court's grant of additur in favor of Tracy and Monty Jones, plaintiffs below, and the court's denial of Carter's motion to enforce a qualified settlement offer. We dismiss this appeal for lack of jurisdiction.
Issue
Carter presents several issues, the following of which is dispositive: Did the trial court's failure to rule on the Joneses's motion to correct error in a timely manner render its belated order granting additur a ° nullity? 1
Facts and Procedural History
On July 29, 1994, Tracy Jones was driving in her car when it was rear-ended by Carter's vehicle. The Joneses sued Carter for Tracy's alleged personal injuries, and Monty's alleged loss of consortium. On May 5, 2000, Carter offered to settle Tracy's claim for $7,500.00, and Monty's claim for $1.00. The offers were apparently rejected, and the case went to trial on June 15, 2000. Carter conceded her lability, but contested the Joneses's damages. The jury awarded Tracy $5,000.00, but found against Monty. (R. 7.) On June 22, 2000, the Joneses filed their "Motion to Correct Error/Additur," asking the court to either enter judgment greater than that contemplated by the jury, or to grant a new trial. The court held hearings on the motion on July 14 and August 11, 2000. (R. 7, 562.) On October 3, 2000, the court purportedly granted the Joneses's motion for additur, finding that the jury's award was inadequate as a matter of law, and adding $50,000.00, for a total judgment of $55,000.00. Carter filed her praccipe on October 28, 2000, and now appeals.
Discussion and Decision
A. Standard lof Review
A trial court has considerable discretion to grant or deny motions to correct [346]*346error. Dughaish ex rel. Dughaish v. Cobb, 729 N.E.2d 159, 167 (Ind.Ct.App.2000), trams. denied. We will reverse only if the court has abused its discretion. Id. An abuse of discretion will be found when the trial court's action is against the logic and effect of the facts and circumstances before it, and when the court's decision is without reason or is based upon impermissible reasons or considerations. Id.
B. Analysis
Carter argues that the court's order granting additur is void because it was not issued in a timely manner. The Joneses appropriately sought additur under Trial Rule 59, which provides that a motion to correct error is a prerequisite for appeal "when a party seeks to address ... [a] claim that a jury's verdict is excessive or inadequate." Trial Rule 53.8(A) provides that
[in the event a court ... fails to rule on a Motion to Correct Error within thirty (30) days after it was heard or forty-five (45) days after it was filed, if no hearing is required, the pending Motion to Correct Error shall be deemed denied. An appeal shall be initiated by filing the notice of appeal under [former] Appellate Rule 2(A) [now Appellate Rule 9] within thirty (80) days after the Motion to correct Error is deemed denied.
"A trial court has no power to rule on a motion to correct error after the time designated by the rule has passed, and any subsequent ruling is a nullity." Johnson v. Johnson County Bd. of Zoning Appeals, 732 N.E.2d 865, 865-866 (Ind.Ct.App.2000). The court heard the Joneses's motion on July 14 and August 11, 2000, but did not rule on it until October 2, 2000. The motion was therefore "deemed denied" under Trial Rule 53.3 as of September 11, 2000, thirty days after the August 11 hearing. Carter thus asserts that the court's October 2, 2000 ruling granting additur was a nullity and must be reversed.
The Joneses respond by asserting that the court's order granting additur is not a nullity, but is simply voidable under the exception to the Trial Rule 58.3 deadlines delineated in Cavinder Elevators, Inc. v. Hall, 726 N.E.2d 285, 289 (Ind.2000)2 In Cavinder, the Indiana Supreme Court held that a trial court's untimely ruling on a motion to correct errors may be voidable rather than a nullity. Id. The court, however, expressly stated that this exception to Trial Rule 58.3's deadlines would apply only when the party filing the motion to correct errors timely pursues an appeal within thirty days of the deemed denial of the motion. Id. Here, the Joneses did not commence an appeal under former Appellate Rule 2(A) by October 11, 2000, thirty days after the deemed denial of their motion as required by Trial Rule 58.3, and Carter urges us to hold that the exception set out in Cavinder does not apply.
The Joneses claim that they promptly appealed the deemed denial of their motion to correct error, and thus fall within the Cavinder exception, by characterizing their status before this court as "cross-appellants" under Trial Rule 59(G) with regard to the issues raised by Carter. This argument misunderstands and misconstrues both Cavinder and the applicable trial rules. First, the Joneses are not cross-appellants under Trial Rule 59(G). That rule permits a party responding to an [347]*347appeal taken in lieu of a motion to correct error to defend against that motion by raising any available ground for the first time upon appeal, and to raise any grounds as cross-errors. This does not help the Joneses, because aside from characterizing themselves as "cross-appellants," they have not identified any action of the trial court they claim to be error. In any event, even if the Joneses had asserted eross-errors here, they unquestionably failed to commence an appeal within thirty days of the deemed denial of their motion, the only fact pertinent to the applicability of the Cavinder exception. The exception therefore does not apply, and the court's untimely order granting additur was a nullity.
As a result, we lack jurisdiction over this appeal. Former Appellate Rule 2(A), in effect until December 31, 2000, required a party seeking an appeal to file a pracecipe within thirty days of the entry of final judgment. As noted above, however, when a party files a motion to correct error, Trial Rule 58.3 provides that the appeal must be commenced within thirty days from the date the court rules on the motion, or within thirty days after the motion is deemed denied. In either case, the filing of the praecipe in a timely manner is a jurisdictional prerequisite to any appeal, and the failure to commence an appeal in a timely manner deprives us of jurisdiction over the remainder of the appeal, and mandates dismissal. See Roscoe v. Roscoe, 673 N.E.2d 820, 821 (Ind.Ct.App.1996) (dismissing appeal for lack of jurisdiction after holding the trial court's belated ruling on a motion to correct errors a nullity, because the party commene-ing appeal failed to file a praccipe within thirty days of the deemed denial of the motion to correct errors). Here, neither party commenced an appeal within thirty days after the Joneses's motion to correct errors was deemed denied by virtue of the trial court's failure to rule upon it, and both parties' rights to an appeal were waived. We accordingly lack jurisdiction, and the appeal must be dismissed.3
Appeal dismissed.
BAKER, J., and MATHIAS, J., coneur.
[348]*348348 Ind.
751 NORTH EASTERN REPORTER, 2d SERIES
DISPOSITION OF CASES BY UNPUBLISHED MEMORANDUM DECISION
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA
INDIANA RULES OF PROCEDURE, APPELLATE RULE 15(A)(3) PROVIDES:
"Unless specifically designated 'For Publication’, memorandum decisions shall not be published in the official reporter of the Indiana Court of Appeals nor shall they be regarded as precedent nor cited before any court except for the purpose of establishing the defense of res judicata, collateral estoppel or law of the case.”
NAME OF CASE
CAUSE
NUMBER DATE JUDGES DISPOSITION
Janitz v. Greene
Horn v. Horn
Lucero v. Lewis
Fenwick v. State
Morris v. State
Howard v. State
Record v. State
Jones v. State
29A04-
0012-CV-
77A04-
0101-CV-12
46A04-
0101-CV-33
65A01-
0101-PC-33
49A04-
0012-CR-
49A02-
55A01-
0012-PC-
07/03/2001 ROBB, J.
BROOK, J. VAIDIK, J.
07/03/2001 FRIEDLANDER, J. SULLIVAN, J. RILEY, J.
07/03/2001 BARNES, J.
DARDEN, J. NAJAM, J.
07/05/2001 BROOK, J.
ROBB, J. VAIDIK, J.
07/05/2001 BARNES, J.
Affirmed
Concurs
Affirmed Concurs Concurs in Result
Reversed
[349]*349MEMORANDUM DECISIONS (UNPUBLISHED) DISPOSITION OF CASES BY UNPUBLISHED MEMORANDUM DECISION-Continued NAME OF CASE Walden v. Majors ............... State v. Chisolm ................ J.W., In re 22. West v. West ............2....... A.C.H., In re Adoption of ........ McCoy v. Cooley ................ Allen v. Home & Farm Ins. Co.... Wells v. State .............. Nill. N.S., In re....lllllllll lvl.. Wilco Food Center, Inc. v. Gust .. Jackson v. Matters .............. Gilbert v. State CAUSE NUMBER DATE JUDGES 29A05-0102-CV-43 07/05/2001 BARNES, J. * ‘ DARDEN, J. NAJAM, J. 10A01-0011-CR-380 07/05/2001 BARNES, J. DARDEN, J. NAJAM, J. 27A02-0102-JV-121 07/06/2001 ROBB, J. BROOK, J. VAIDIK, J. O6AO1-0012-CV-440 07/06/2001 BROOK, J. VAIDIK, J. ROBB, J. 34A02-0103-CV-143 07/06/2001 BROOK, J. © ROBB, J. VAIDIK, J. 34A05-0101-CV-39 07/06/2001 HOFFMAN, SR. J. . BAKER, J. BARNES, J. 86A04- * 0103-CV-93 07/06/2001 NAJAM, J. DARDEN, J. BARNES, J. 49A05-0012-CR- i 559 07/06/2001 KIRSCH, J. SHARPNACK, C.J. MATTINGLY-MAY, J. 45A03-0012-JV-477 07/06/2001 KIRSCH, J. SHARPNACK, C.J. MATTINGLY-MAY, J. 45A03-0103-CV-74 07/06/2001 BROOK, J. ROBB, J. VAIDIK, J. O6A01-0009-CV-299 07/09/2001 HOFFMAN, SR. J. RILEY, J. BAKER, J. 30A05-0104-CR- , 142 07/09/2001 BARNES, J. DARDEN, J. NAJAM, J. Ind. 349 DISPOSITION Reversed Concurs Concurs Dismissed Concurs Concurs Affirmed Concurs Concurs Affirmed Concurs Dissents with opinion Affirmed Concurs Concurs Affirmed Concurs Concurs Affirmed Concurs Concurs Allirmed Concurs Concurs Alfirmed Concurs Concurs Alfirmed Concurs Concurs Affirmed and Remanded Concurs Concurs Allirmed Concurs Concurs
[350]*350350 Ind.
DISPOSITION OF CASES BY UNPUBLISHED MEMORANDUM DECISION—Continued
NUMBER DATE JUDGES
Penrose v. Penrose
Wilson v. Slate
Dorn v. Phair
Dickman v. Stale
64A04-
0009-CV-
386 07/10/2001
18A02-
0008-PC-
493 07/10/2001
07A04-
0002-CV-78 07/10/2001
03A04-
0009-CR-
393 07/10/2001
BAKER, J. BAILEY, J. MATHIAS, J.
MATTINGLY-MAY,
J.
FRIEDLANDER, J. BAILEY, J.
SHARPNACK, C.J.
Cover v. State
State v. Riding
Hogan v. State
Williams v. State
Gillard v. State
Cunningham v. State
J.C. v. State
20A03-
0011-CR-
403 07/10/2001
764 07/10/2001
8-26 07/10/2001
06A01-
0104-CR-
124 07/10/2001
799 07/10/2001
0101-CR-38 07/10/2001
0012-JV-
784 ' 07/10/2001
KIRSCH, J.
SHARPNACK, C.J. KIRSCH, J.
DARDEN, J. NAJAM, J. BARNES, J.
ROBERTSON, SR. J.
BAILEY, J. MATHIAS, J.
ROBERTSON,
SHARPNACK, C.J. KIRSCH, J. MATTINGLY-MAY,
FRIEDLANDER, J. RILEY, J. SULLIVAN, J.
DISPOSITION
Affirmed and Remanded Concurs Concurs
[351]*351o MEMORANDUM DECISIONS (UNPUBLISHED) DISPOSITION OF CASES BY UNPUBLISHED MEMORANDUM DECISION-Continued CAUSE NAME OF CASE NUMBER DATE JUDGES Incremona v. State .............. 35A02-0010-CR-680 07/10/2001 BAKER, J. NAJAM, J. BAILEY, J. Parks v. State. 48A02-0005-PC-314 07/11/2001 NAJAM, J. DARDEN, J. « - BARNES, J. Walker v. State ............. v... 13A01-0012-CR-415 07/11/2001 ROBB, J. BROOK, J. VAIDIK, J. Huddleston v. Huddleston .... ... 49A02-0010-CV-676 07/11/2001 HOFFMAN, SR. J. FRIEDLANDER, J. KIRSCH, J. Miller v. State ...........2.2.2.... 26A01-0103-CR-97 07/12/2001 BROOK, J. ROBB, J. VAIDIK, J. Star Financial Bank v. Foss Marketing Services Inc. ........... 29A02-0006-CV-364 07/12/2001 BROOK, J. ROBB, J. VAIDIK, J. Winingear v. State .............. 49A02-0012-CR-828 07/12/2001 BROOK, J. ROBB, J. VAIDIK, J. Carie v. State ...............l.... 53A01-0009-CR-304 07/12/2001 ROBB, J. BROOK, J. VAIDIK, J. Krohn v. North Gibson School Corp. Bd. of Trustees .......... 26A04-0010-CV-428 07/13/2001 VAIDIK, J. ROBB, J. BROOK, J. Gifford v. State ............2..... 34A02-0102-CR-93 07/13/2001 RILEY, J. SULLIVAN, J. FRIEDLANDER, J. Ind. 351 DISPOSITION Rehearing Granted and trial court A{-[irmed Concurs Concurs Allirmed Concurs Concurs Affirmed Concurs Concurs Reversed and Remanded Concurs Concurs Reversed Concurs Concurs Affirmed Concurs Concurs Affirmed Concurs Concurs Rehearing Granted lor correcting typographic error, allirmed .all other rc-specis Concurs Concurs Aflirmed Concurs Concurs Alfirmed Concurs Concurs
[352]*352o 352 Ind. 751 NORTH EASTERN REPORTER, 2d SERIES DISPOSITION OF CASES BY UNPUBLISHED MEMORANDUM DECISION-Continued CAUSE NAME OF CASE NUMBER DATE JUDGES DISPOSITION Ruffin v. State .................. 49A02-Q101-CR-31 07/16/2001 SHARPNACK, C.J. Affirmed KIRSCH, J. Concurs MATTINGLY-MAY, Concurs J. McCarty v. State ................ 65A01-0102-CR-55 07/16/2001 RATLIFF, SR. J. Affirmed ROBB, J. Concurs SHARPNACK, C.J. Concurs Ratcliff v. State ................. 23A01-0103-CR-86 07/16/2001 BARNES, J. Allirmed DARDEN, J. Concurs NAJAM, J. Concurs Gause v. State .................. 49A02-0012-CR-823 07/18/2001 ROBERTSON, Affirmed, Re-SR. J. versed and Remanded SHARPNACK, C.J. Concurs DARDEN, J. Concurs Capehart v. Capehart ,........... 49A02-0009-CV-578 07/16/2001 FRIEDLANDER, J. Affirmed RILEY, J. Concurs SULLIVAN, J. Concurs Meyers v. State .............. ... 21A05-0010-PC-429 07/16/2001 MATHIAS, J. Affirmed : BAILEY, J. Concurs BAKER, J. Concurs in result w/ sep. opin. Berry v. State. .................}. 49A02-0010-PC-653 07/18/2001 BAKER, J. Affirmed BAILEY, J. Concurs MATHIAS, J. Concurs Yingst v. State 24A04-0012-PC-562 07/16/2001 MATHIAS, J. Affirmed BAILEY, J. Concurs BAKER, J. Concurs Freeman v. State. ............... 49A02-0012-CR-833 07/16/2001 BAKER, J. Affirmed BAILEY, J. Concurs MATHIAS, J. Concurs CLI v. State. lll... 49A02-O101-JV-23 07/17/2001 DARDEN, J. Affirmed NAJAM, J. Concurs BARNES, J. Concurs
[353]*353MEMORANDUM DECISIONS (UNPUBLISHED) Ind. 353 DISPOSITION OF CASES BY UNPUBLISHED MEMORANDUM DECISION-Continued CAUSE NAME OF CASE NUMBER DATE JUDGES DISPOSITION Jackson v. State. 49A02-0012-CR-829 07/17/2001 BAILEY, J. Allirmed BAKER, J. Concurs MATHIAS, J. Concurs > Henkels & McCoy v. What-A-Bore, ING. .................... 79A04-0104-CV-137 07/17/2001 DARDEN, J. Affirmed NAJAM, J. Concurs BARNES, J. Concurs Fields v. State ............2.2... 18A02-0011-PC-697 07/17/2001 BAILEY, J. Affirmed BAKER, J. Concurs MATHIAS, J. Concurs Northwest Plaza Realty, L.P. v. Underwriters Sur., Inc. ........ 49A05--0010-CV-409 07/17/2001 BAILEY, J. Alfirmed BAKER, J. Concurs MATHIAS, J. Concurs Snow v. State ...........2....... 03A04-0007-CR-294 07/17/2001 BROOK, J. Affirmed KIRSCH, J. Concurs ROBB, J. Concurs in result w/ opin. Johnson v. State 49A02-0012-CR-786 07/17/2001 BAILEY, J. Alfirmed BAKER, J. Concurs MATHIAS, J. Concurs Crooks v. Walgreen Advance Care, Inc. .................2.. 34A02-0012-CV-820 07/17/2001 DARDEN, J. Allirmed NAJAM, J. Concurs BARNES, J. Concurs Bartrum v. Grant County Office Div. of Family and Children.... 27404 0103-JV-99 07/17/2001 DARDEN, J. Affirmed NAJAM, J. Concurs BARNES, J. Concurs King v. State 46A05-0011-CR-503 07/17/2001 NAJAM, J. Affirmed DARDEN, J. _. Concurs BARNES, J. Concurs Kenipe v. State ................. 29A02-0012-CR-796 07/17/2001 DARDEN, J. Affirmed NAJAM, J. Concurs BARNES, J. Concurs Thews v. Pierce ................. 45A04-0103-CV-87 07/17/2001 BAILEY, J. Affirmed BAKER, J. . Concurs
[354]*354354 Ind. 751 NORTH EASTERN REPORTER, 2d SERIES DISPOSITION OF CASES BY UNPUBLISHED MEMORANDUM DECISION-Continued CAUSE NAME OF CASE NUMBER DATE JUDGES «DISPOSITION S.S., In re ...... Mall lla rae 73A04-Q103-JV-96 07/17/2001 BAILEY, J. Affirmed BAKER, J. Concurs ' MATHIAS, J. Concurs Cyprian v. State. ............... . 45A03-0101-PC-27 07/17/2001 BAILEY, J. Alfirmed BAKER, J. Concurs MATHIAS, J. Concurs McDaniel v. State ..............: 18A02-0012-CR-804 07/17/2001 BAILEY, J. Affirmed BAKER, J. Concurs MATHIAS, J. Concurs Copley v. State. ................. 18A02-0010-CR-625 07/18/2001 FRIEDLANDER, J. Affirmed SULLIVAN, J. Concurs RILEY, J. Concurs Isom v. State 45A04-0012-CR-555 07/18/2001 KIRSCH, J. Affirmed , SHARPNACK, C.J. Concurs MATTINGLY-MAY, Concurs J. Estep v. State ................... 49A05-0010-CR-463 07/18/2001 FRIEDLANDER, J. Affirmed RILEY, J. Concurs SULLIVAN, J. Concurs McGraw v. State . ............... 49A02-0012-CR-814 07/19/2001 DARDEN, J. ' Affirmed NAJAM, J. Concurs BARNES, J. Concurs Williams v. IKON Office Solutions, ING. eee}. 93A02-0102-EX-64 07/19/2001 DARDEN, J. Affirmed NAJAM, J. Concurs BARNES, J. Concurs Gambrell v. State ............... 02A04-0102-CR-70 07/19/2001 DARDEN, J. Affirmed NAJAM, J. Concurs BARNES, J. Concurs Brown v. State. 45A03-0010-CR-393 07/20/2001 BARNES, J. DARDEN, J. Concurs NAJAM, J. Concurs Sokol v. Sokol .................. 27A05-o101-CV-30 07/20/2001 MATHIAS, J. Allirmed BAILEY, J. Concurs BAKER, J. Concurs