ILNews

High court grants 3 transfers

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

The Indiana Supreme Court granted transfer Thursday to three cases involving a murder conviction, a request for post-conviction relief, and the appointment of counsel for a mother involved in a termination proceeding.  

In James A. Carr v. State of Indiana, No. 25S04-1004-CR-219, James Carr appealed his murder conviction, which the Indiana Court of Appeals upheld. The appellate court held that Carr’s proceedings didn’t violate the speedy-trial provisions of Indiana Criminal Rule 4; Carr’s confession to law enforcement was not procured in violation of his Miranda rights; the trial court did not err by prohibiting cross-examination into Carr’s level of intoxication during his custodial interrogation; and the court did not err by refusing to instruct the jury on various lesser-included offenses.

In State of Indiana v. Craig Cooper,  No. 49S02-1004-PC-220, the appellate court affirmed the grant of Cooper’s request for post-conviction relief. He showed the requisite prejudice because he wouldn’t have pleaded guilty to the charged offense of operating a vehicle while an habitual traffic violator had he known there was no basis for that charge. He was prejudiced by the inadequate factual basis that was presented at the guilty plea hearing. Judge Margret Robb dissented because she didn’t believe Cooper demonstrated he was prejudiced by the error.

In Termination of parent-child relationship of I.B.; M.L. v. IDCS, No. 03S05-1004-JV-218, the Court of Appeals affirmed the denial of the motion to appoint counsel to appeal the termination of mother M.L.’s parental relationship with I.B. Mother failed to carry her burden as an indigent person to show the trial court she met the statutory requirements for the appointment of counsel. She didn’t even request the appellate counsel representation; her trial counsel did.
 

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. The practitioners and judges who hail E-filing as the Saviour of the West need to contain their respective excitements. E-filing is federal court requires the practitioner to cram his motion practice into pigeonholes created by IT people. Compound motions or those seeking alternative relief are effectively barred, unless the practitioner wants to receive a tart note from some functionary admonishing about the "problem". E-filing is just another method by which courts and judges transfer their burden to practitioners, who are the really the only powerless components of the system. Of COURSE it is easier for the court to require all of its imput to conform to certain formats, but this imposition does NOT improve the quality of the practice of law and does NOT improve the ability of the practitioner to advocate for his client or to fashion pleadings that exactly conform to his client's best interests. And we should be very wary of the disingenuous pablum about the costs. The courts will find a way to stick it to the practitioner. Lake County is a VERY good example of this rapaciousness. Any one who does not believe this is invited to review the various special fees that system imposes upon practitioners- as practitioners- and upon each case ON TOP of the court costs normal in every case manually filed. Jurisprudence according to Aldous Huxley.

  2. Any attorneys who practice in federal court should be able to say the same as I can ... efiling is great. I have been doing it in fed court since it started way back. Pacer has its drawbacks, but the ability to hit an e-docket and pull up anything and everything onscreen is a huge plus for a litigator, eps the sole practitioner, who lacks a filing clerk and the paralegal support of large firms. Were I an Indiana attorney I would welcome this great step forward.

  3. Can we get full disclosure on lobbyist's payments to legislatures such as Mr Buck? AS long as there are idiots that are disrespectful of neighbors and intent on shooting fireworks every night, some kind of regulations are needed.

  4. I am the mother of the child in this case. My silence on the matter was due to the fact that I filed, both in Illinois and Indiana, child support cases. I even filed supporting documentation with the Indiana family law court. Not sure whether this information was provided to the court of appeals or not. Wish the case was done before moving to Indiana, because no matter what, there is NO WAY the state of Illinois would have allowed an appeal on a child support case!

  5. "No one is safe when the Legislature is in session."

ADVERTISEMENT