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
2015 Distinguished Barrister &
Up and Coming Lawyer Reception

Tuesday, May 5, 2015 • 4:30 - 7:00 pm
Learn More


ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. The $320,000 is the amount the school spent in litigating two lawsuits: One to release the report involving John Trimble (as noted in the story above) and one defending the discrimination lawsuit. The story above does not mention the amount spent to defend the discrimination suit, that's why the numbers don't match. Thanks for reading.

  2. $160k? Yesterday the figure was $320k. Which is it Indiana Lawyer. And even more interesting, which well connected law firm got the (I am guessing) $320k, six time was the fired chancellor received. LOL. (From yesterday's story, which I guess we were expected to forget overnight ... "According to records obtained by the Journal & Courier, Purdue spent $161,812, beginning in July 2012, in a state open records lawsuit and $168,312, beginning in April 2013, for defense in a federal lawsuit. Much of those fees were spent battling court orders to release an independent investigation by attorney John Trimble that found Purdue could have handled the forced retirement better")

  3. The numbers are harsh; 66 - 24 in the House, 40 - 10 in the Senate. And it is an idea pushed by the Democrats. Dead end? Ummm not necessarily. Just need to go big rather than go home. Nuclear option. Give it to the federal courts, the federal courts will ram this down our throats. Like that other invented right of the modern age, feticide. Rights too precious to be held up by 2000 years of civilization hang in the balance. Onward!

  4. I'm currently seeing someone who has a charge of child pornography possession, he didn't know he had it because it was attached to a music video file he downloaded when he was 19/20 yrs old and fought it for years until he couldn't handle it and plead guilty of possession. He's been convicted in Illinois and now lives in Indiana. Wouldn't it be better to give them a chance to prove to the community and their families that they pose no threat? He's so young and now because he was being a kid and downloaded music at a younger age, he has to pay for it the rest of his life? It's unfair, he can't live a normal life, and has to live in fear of what people can say and do to him because of something that happened 10 years ago? No one deserves that, and no one deserves to be labeled for one mistake, he got labeled even though there was no intent to obtain and use the said content. It makes me so sad to see someone I love go through this and it makes me holds me back a lot because I don't know how people around me will accept him...second chances should be given to those under the age of 21 at least so they can be given a chance to live a normal life as a productive member of society.

  5. It's just an ill considered remark. The Sup Ct is inherently political, as it is a core part of government, and Marbury V Madison guaranteed that it would become ever more so Supremely thus. So her remark is meaningless and she just should have not made it.... what she could have said is that Congress is a bunch of lazys and cowards who wont do their jobs so the hard work of making laws clear, oftentimes stops with the Sups sorting things out that could have been resolved by more competent legislation. That would have been a more worthwhile remark and maybe would have had some relevance to what voters do, since voters cant affect who gets appointed to the supremely un-democratic art III courts.

ADVERTISEMENT