ILNews

Justices adopt appellate court findings

Back to TopE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

The Indiana Supreme Court issued a pair of short per curiam opinions on Thursday afternoon that adopt what the Indiana Court of Appeals decided on two criminal appeals.

Those opinions came in the cases of Curtis Outlaw v. State, No. 49S02-1006-CR-328; and Steven Marbley-El v. State, No. 71S03-1006-PC-329.

In Outlaw, the justices agreed with the appellate panel in reversing an Indianapolis man’s conviction for a Class A misdemeanor of operating a vehicle while intoxicated “in a manner that endangers a person.” The state had argued that evidence of intoxication should be sufficient to prove “endangerment,” which was the case before the General Assembly revised Indiana Code §9-30-5-2 in 2001. But the appellate court disagreed and rejected that argument and the conviction, which Curtis Outlaw had received a 365-day sentence for.

In Marbley-El, the court granted the transfer petition and summarily affirmed the Court of Appeals on a post-conviction case from St. Joseph Superior. Steven Marbley-El argued that he should have received a jury trial because his sentence was enhanced beyond the four year advisory to six years, based on Blakey v. Washington, 542 U.S. 296, 124 S. Ct. 2531 (2004) and Smylie v. State, 823 N.E.2d 679 (Ind. 2005). But the justices said those rulings don’t apply here because Marbley-El committed the robbery after lawmakers enacted the present “advisory” sentencing scheme.
 

ADVERTISEMENT

Sponsored by
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. A sad end to a prolific gadfly. Indiana has suffered a great loss in the journalistic realm.

  2. Good riddance to this dangerous activist judge

  3. What is the one thing the Hoosier legal status quo hates more than a whistleblower? A lawyer whistleblower taking on the system man to man. That must never be rewarded, must always, always, always be punished, lest the whole rotten tree be felled.

  4. I want to post this to keep this tread alive and hope more of David's former clients might come forward. In my case, this coward of a man represented me from June 2014 for a couple of months before I fired him. I knew something was wrong when he blatantly lied about what he had advised me in my contentious and unfortunate divorce trial. His impact on the proceedings cast a very long shadow and continues to impact me after a lengthy 19 month divorce. I would join a class action suit.

  5. The dispute in LB Indiana regarding lake front property rights is typical of most beach communities along our Great Lakes. Simply put, communication to non owners when visiting the lakefront would be beneficial. The Great Lakes are designated navigational waters (including shorelines). The high-water mark signifies the area one is able to navigate. This means you can walk, run, skip, etc. along the shores. You can't however loiter, camp, sunbath in front of someones property. Informational signs may be helpful to owners and visitors. Our Great Lakes are a treasure that should be enjoyed by all. PS We should all be concerned that the Long Beach, Indiana community is on septic systems.

ADVERTISEMENT