ILNews

COA travels to Lafayette, IU campuses

IL Staff
January 1, 2008
Keywords
Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share
The Indiana Court of Appeals will visit three Indiana colleges April 8 and 9 to hear arguments in cases regarding child molestation, defamatory statements, and ineffective counsel.

Judges will visit Ivy Tech Community College in Lafayette Tuesday to hear arguments regarding a case on appeal from Lake Superior Court. Arguments for Victor Vega Torres v. State of Indiana, 45A03-0708-CR-385, begin at 10 a.m. in Ivy Hall. Judges Ezra Friedlander, Margret Robb, and Cale Bradford will have to decide whether Torres' maximum sentence of eight years following a guilty plea to child molesting is inappropriate in light of the nature of the offense and the fact he has a history of mental illness.

Also on Tuesday, Judges James Kirsch, Melissa May, and Patricia Riley will hear arguments in Thomas Williams and Sanford Kelsey v. Kelly E. Tharp and Papa John's USA, Inc., 29A02-0707-CV-625, at 5 p.m. at Indiana University School of Law - Indianapolis in the Wynne Courtroom in Inlow Hall. At issue in the case on appeal from Hamilton Circuit Court is whether the trial court erred in finding Tharp did not make defamatory statements by telling police that Williams and Kelsey pulled a gun when they picked up a pizza from a Papa John's restaurant. The court will also have to decide if the trial court erred in ruling Tharp didn't act intentionally or in an extreme or outrageous manner.

On Wednesday, the three-judge panel of Bradford, May, and L. Mark Bailey travel to Indiana University Southeast in New Albany to hear arguments in Charles Sweeney v. State of Indiana, 10A01-0707-PC-303, at 12:30 p.m. in the Hoosier Room West in the University Center North building. The appellate court is asked to decide whether Sweeney deserves post-conviction relief because of ineffective counsel following his conviction of murder and sentence of 60 years. The case is on appeal from Clark Circuit Court.
ADVERTISEMENT

Post a comment to this story

COMMENTS POLICY
We reserve the right to remove any post that we feel is obscene, profane, vulgar, racist, sexually explicit, abusive, or hateful.
 
You are legally responsible for what you post and your anonymity is not guaranteed.
 
Posts that insult, defame, threaten, harass or abuse other readers or people mentioned in Indiana Lawyer editorial content are also subject to removal. Please respect the privacy of individuals and refrain from posting personal information.
 
No solicitations, spamming or advertisements are allowed. Readers may post links to other informational websites that are relevant to the topic at hand, but please do not link to objectionable material.
 
We may remove messages that are unrelated to the topic, encourage illegal activity, use all capital letters or are unreadable.
 

Messages that are flagged by readers as objectionable will be reviewed and may or may not be removed. Please do not flag a post simply because you disagree with it.

Sponsored by
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. Unfortunately, the court doesn't understand the difference between ebidta and adjusted ebidta as they clearly got the ruling wrong based on their misunderstanding

  2. A common refrain in the comments on this website comes from people who cannot locate attorneys willing put justice over retainers. At the same time the judiciary threatens to make pro bono work mandatory, seemingly noting the same concern. But what happens to attorneys who have the chumptzah to threatened the legal status quo in Indiana? Ask Gary Welch, ask Paul Ogden, ask me. Speak truth to power, suffer horrendously accordingly. No wonder Hoosier attorneys who want to keep in good graces merely chase the dollars ... the powers that be have no concerns as to those who are ever for sale to the highest bidder ... for those even willing to compromise for $$$ never allow either justice or constitutionality to cause them to stand up to injustice or unconstitutionality. And the bad apples in the Hoosier barrel, like this one, just keep rotting.

  3. I am one of Steele's victims and was taken for $6,000. I want my money back due to him doing nothing for me. I filed for divorce after a 16 year marriage and lost everything. My kids, my home, cars, money, pension. Every attorney I have talked to is not willing to help me. What can I do? I was told i can file a civil suit but you have to have all of Steelers info that I don't have. Of someone can please help me or tell me what info I need would be great.

  4. It would appear that news breaking on Drudge from the Hoosier state (link below) ties back to this Hoosier story from the beginning of the recent police disrespect period .... MCBA president Cassandra Bentley McNair issued the statement on behalf of the association Dec. 1. The association said it was “saddened and disappointed” by the decision not to indict Ferguson police officer Darren Wilson for shooting Michael Brown. “The MCBA does not believe this was a just outcome to this process, and is disheartened that the system we as lawyers are intended to uphold failed the African-American community in such a way,” the association stated. “This situation is not just about the death of Michael Brown, but the thousands of other African-Americans who are disproportionately targeted and killed by police officers.” http://www.thestarpress.com/story/news/local/2016/07/18/hate-cops-sign-prompts-controversy/87242664/

  5. What form or who do I talk to about a d felony which I hear is classified as a 6 now? Who do I talk to. About to get my degree and I need this to go away it's been over 7 years if that helps.

ADVERTISEMENT