*1 problems tional and mental significant
mitigating factor. Manifestly
B. Unreasonable.
Bailey argues also eighty-five that his year
sentence is manifestly (Ap unreasonable. 33.)
pellant's Br. at This Court has the authority
constitutional to review and re
vise sentences when the sentence is "mani
festly light unreasonable in of the nature
of the offense and the character of the State, Noojin
offender." v. (Ind.2000) (quoting Appellate Ind. 17(B))5
Rule light of the brutal Bailey's
attacks on Hudson and Godsey, we cannot
say that eighty-five year sentence was
manifestly unreasonable.
Conclusion
We affirm of the trial
court.
DICKSON, SULLIVAN, BOEHM, and
RUCKER, JJ., concur.
Fred TURNER and Melissa
Appellants-Plaintiffs,
RICHMOND POWER AND LIGHT
COMPANY, Appellee,
Defendant.
No. 89A01-0002-CV-67.
Court Appeals of Indiana.
Feb. 2002. 7(B). App.
5. Now R. *2 Todd, Conour, S. F. Ronald
William IN, Doehrman, At- Indianapolis, Conour Appellant. torneys for IN, Rich, Attor- Indianapolis, A. Miriam nеy Appellee. REHEARING ON
OPINION ROBB, Judge. petition us on a is before
This case Defendant Appellee rehearing filed Company Light Power Richmond ("RPL"), this court recon rеquesting Richmond Turner its decision sider (Ind. Light Power opinion, original In our Ct.App.2001). in dismiss- trial court erred held ing Fred Turner's against RPL few of these fаctors and argues that our for lack of be- decision materially misstates the record. negligence complaint сause his argument the RPL's essentially challenges our utility was not barred exclusivity interpretation of the evidence contаined in provision of the Compensation Worker's the record and the conclusions *3 reached Act. Id. at 559. majority We the rehearing opinion. purpose
the limited of addressing RPL's We will first reiterate the stan contention that our earlier decision materi- dard of employed review in Turner. ally misstates the record. When an employer against defends an em In our original opinion, we found that ployee's negligence claim on the basis that RPL hybrid was a entity; it retained as- the employеe's exclusive remedy is to pur pects that indicated that it agency was an sue a claim for benefits under the Indiana dеpartment City Richmond, of the of Act, Worker's Compensation the defense is and other aspects which indicated that it рroperly advanced through a motion to was a separate entity and distinct from the dismiss for lack subject of jurisdic mattеr municipality. Id. at 555. "Because of the tion 12(B)(1). under Indiana Trial Rule hybrid RPL, the compa- electric Foshee v. Shoney's, 1277, ny cannot neatly be 'pigeonholed' as a (Ind.1994). 1280 In ruling on a motion to governmental agency or separate as subject and dismiss for lack of matter distinct City." from the Id. the may After consider not reviewing utility's characteristics, the the motion, and any but also determined that RPL was affidavits or more akin to a evidence submitted in sup subsidiary port. of a municipal corporation Dep't than Indiana Highways v. Dix on, governmental 877, (Ind.1989). 541 ageney. N.E.2d Id. at 558. 884 addition, the trial may court weigh the We following found the factors indicia еvidence to determine the existence of the a separate was and distinct enti- requisite jurisdictional facts. Borgman ty (1) from City of Richmond: RPL State Farm 851, Ins. 854 was not included in City's organiza- (Ind.Ct.App.1999), trans. denied. (2) chart; tional per- conducted its sonnel matters independently from the The appellate standard of review (8) City; aof RPL grant or City denial of a mo maintained different employee packages; benefit tion pursuant to dismiss to Trial Rule upon method which RPL entered into 12(B)(1) is a function of what оccurred in contracts, billed, service pay- collected the trial court. GKN Co. v. 744 (Ind.2001). ment customers; from its The standard RPL's main- tеnance of banking and investment ac- of appellate (f) dependent review is upon: separate counts frоm those used the whether the trial court disputed resolved City; RPL's ownership (i) of equipment facts; and if the trial court resolved and facilities essential for delivery of disputed facts, whether it conducted an service; electric difference in budgеt- evidentiary hearing or "paper ruled on a ary matters RPL; between the record." Id. If the facts before the trial (8) RPL's retention of outside counsel and court are in dispute, not question then the separate liability insurance City; purely one (9) diffеrence in hierarchy manage- of law and no deference is afforded to the ment between RPL and Id. at trial court's conclusion. Id. The standard 557-58. RPL disputes the validity of a of review is de novo. Id. tipped the evidence was that the balancе before facts
If the Id. findings. the court's review appellate dispute, then conduct on whether focuses assertions, our Contrary to RPL's Id. Under evidentiary hearing. ed not misstate in Turner did cireumstances, typically en decision these function, at differеnt we arrived fact-finding classic record. gages in its propounded and credibil evaluating the character then conclusions often Cos., discretion. RPL, within our Id.; which Ins. Anthem ity of witnesses. Corp., 730 Healthcare v. Tenet Inc. Moreover, disagreement is a if there even Where as a points, the record minor as to certain evidentiary hearing, we conducts an our cоnclusion supports unerringly whole *4 def findings judgment its factual dis give separate and operated as a that Dage-MTI, Inc. v. Menаrd Consequently, erence. entity from the tinct In re trial then that the now as we held we hold judg findings and trial court's viewing a dismissing Turner's com in errеd they if are ment, will reverse subject matter lack of plaint for clearly erroneous. tion. dispute in but facts are at 401. Whеre clarification, we reaffirm Subject to this paper a record rules on trial court holding. earlier our evidentiаry hearing, an conducting without to the trial is afforded deference then no be findings factual J., RILEY, concurs. circumstances, cause under MATTINGLY-MAY, J., in concurs aas good position" "in as a
of review rehearing. grant the trial whether court to determine jurisdiction. subject matter has MATTINGLY-MAY, concurring Judge, Assocs., Inc. v. State Surgical Ctr. MHC re-hearing. grant in Policy Planning, & Medicaid Office of (Ind.Ct.App.1998). materi- majority did not agree I facts before However, as ex- several the record. ally misstate parties disa- dispute, and the court were dissent, infer- my I believe plained to be drawn the inferences about greed facts in the propеrly drawn ences In addi- undisputed facts. from even conclusion support record record revealed pur- the same evidentiary hear- not conduct court did coverage. compensation of worker's poses paper rеcord it ruled on ing. the Petition I therefore would complaints; parties' consisting of: Rehearing. witnesses; deposition affidavits of law. memoranda testimony; de
Therefore, of review was our standard judgment of the
novo; affirm the we could theory the evidence any legal on Magness, 744 supportеd. See record However, at 401. correct, could and we presumptively factual of an incorrect on the basis
reverse this court persuaded if Turner
finding only