ILNews

Opinions Nov. 2, 2012

November 2, 2012
Keywords
Back to TopE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

Indiana Court of Appeals
Joshua A. Bostic v. State of Indiana
12A02-1202-CR-154
Criminal. Affirms convictions of Cass C felony attempted battery by means of a deadly weapon and criminal recklessness; Class D felony arson; Class A misdemeanor criminal mischief; and Class B misdemeanor criminal mischief, holding that Bostic waived his right to appeal under Criminal Rule 4(C) by failing to object to trial delays before the trial court. The court also found he likewise waived his right to appeal the process for appointing a special judge. Remands to the trial court to correct the sentencing order, abstract of judgment, and chronological case summary to reflect that Bostic’s 12-year habitual offender enhancement is an enhancement to his sentence for felony criminal recklessness, and not a separate conviction.

Curtis M. Howard v. State of Indiana (NFP)
79A02-1205-CR-410
Criminal. Affirms revocation of community corrections.

Dennis Leer v. State of Indiana (NFP)
20A04-1204-PC-185
Criminal. Reverses and remands denial of a petition for post-conviction relief, ordering the trial court to correct his sentence to reflect that the sentence for murder is to be served concurrently with an earlier sentence for attempted murder.

In Re The Visitation of M.J. and J.J.: C.M. v. J.J. and I.J. (NFP)
71A03-1205-JM-220
Domestic relation. Affirms granting of visitation with her two minor children, M.J. and J.J., to the children’s paternal grandparents, Jo.J. and I.J.

Kirk Lynch v. State of Indiana (NFP)
40A05-1201-CR-26
Criminal. Affirms in a split decision a conviction for Class A felony attempted child molesting, and vacating the conviction for Class C felony child solicitation, and revises Lynch’s sentence from 40 years with five suspended to probation to 25 years imprisonment with five years suspended to probation. The majority determined the child solicitation count constituted double jeopardy. Judge Terry Crone agreed, but said Lynch’s 40-year sentence was not inappropriate based on the nature of his offense and Lynch’s character.
 
Indiana Tax Court
Carolyn Gibson v. Indiana Dept. of State Revenue (NFP)
49T10-1204-TA-20
Affirms denial of refund claim.
 

ADVERTISEMENT

Sponsored by
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. Just an aside, but regardless of the outcome, I 'm proud of Judge William Hughes. He was the original magistrate on the Home place issue. He ruled for Home Place, and was primaried by Brainard for it. Their tool Poindexter failed to unseat Hughes, who won support for his honesty and courage throughout the county, and he was reelected Judge of Hamilton County's Superior Court. You can still stand for something and survive. Thanks, Judge Hughes!

  2. CCHP's real accomplishment is the 2015 law signed by Gov Pence that basically outlaws any annexation that is forced where a 65% majority of landowners in the affected area disagree. Regardless of whether HP wins or loses, the citizens of Indiana will not have another fiasco like this. The law Gov Pence signed is a direct result of this malgovernance.

  3. I gave tempparry guardship to a friend of my granddaughter in 2012. I went to prison. I had custody. My daughter went to prison to. We are out. My daughter gave me custody but can get her back. She was not order to give me custody . but now we want granddaughter back from friend. She's 14 now. What rights do we have

  4. This sure is not what most who value good governance consider the Rule of Law to entail: "In a letter dated March 2, which Brizzi forwarded to IBJ, the commission dismissed the grievance “on grounds that there is not reasonable cause to believe that you are guilty of misconduct.”" Yet two month later reasonable cause does exist? (Or is the commission forging ahead, the need for reasonable belief be damned? -- A seeming violation of the Rules of Profession Ethics on the part of the commission) Could the rule of law theory cause one to believe that an explanation is in order? Could it be that Hoosier attorneys live under Imperial Law (which is also a t-word that rhymes with infamy) in which the Platonic guardians can do no wrong and never owe the plebeian class any explanation for their powerful actions. (Might makes it right?) Could this be a case of politics directing the commission, as celebrated IU Mauer Professor (the late) Patrick Baude warned was happening 20 years ago in his controversial (whisteblowing) ethics lecture on a quite similar topic: http://www.repository.law.indiana.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1498&context=ilj

  5. I have a case presently pending cert review before the SCOTUS that reveals just how Indiana regulates the bar. I have been denied licensure for life for holding the wrong views and questioning the grand inquisitors as to their duties as to state and federal constitutional due process. True story: https://www.scribd.com/doc/299040839/2016Petitionforcert-to-SCOTUS Shorter, Amici brief serving to frame issue as misuse of govt licensure: https://www.scribd.com/doc/312841269/Thomas-More-Society-Amicus-Brown-v-Ind-Bd-of-Law-Examiners

ADVERTISEMENT