ILNews

Opinions Dec. 21, 2012

December 21, 2012
Keywords
Back to TopE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

Indiana Court of Appeals
Steven E. Malloch v. State of Indiana
17A03-1201-CR-37
Criminal. Affirms conviction of Class A felony child molesting for an incident involving his stepdaughter. There was no prosecutorial misconduct and the trial court did not err by admitting Malloch’s apology letter to C.P. Although Malloch did not receive a perfect trial, the appellate judges are confident he received a fair trial.

Kenneth S. Tipton v. State of Indiana
47A01-1201-CR-4
Criminal. Affirms conviction of Class C felony criminal recklessness. Believes someone shooting a gun at a residence may, for purposes of a criminal recklessness prosecution, create a substantial risk of bodily injury to another person even if the resident is away from home at the moment of the shooting.

Patrick Austin v. State of Indiana
20A03-1112-CR-588
Criminal. Affirms conviction of and sentence for two counts of Class A felony possession of cocaine. The trial court did not abuse its discretion in continuing Austin’s trial. Sentence is not inappropriate as Austin was caught transporting cocaine worth over four million dollars, and he had a prior felony conviction and two firearms-related arrests, and had previously been found with one million dollars in cash, which police seized.

Charles D. Stutz v. State of Indiana (NFP)
32A04-1205-CR-255
Criminal. Affirms convictions of Class D felonies resisting law enforcement and intimidation.

Michael R. Anderson, Jr. v. State of Indiana (NFP)
71A04-1204-CR-220
Criminal. Affirms convictions of Class C misdemeanor operating a motor vehicle while never having received a driver’s license, Class A misdemeanor possession of marijuana and possession of marijuana as a Class D felony.

Term. of the Parent-Child Rel. of B.W., Minor Child; R.C., Father v. Indiana Dept. of Child Services (NFP)
02A03-1204-JT-173
Juvenile. Affirms involuntary termination of parental rights.

Joseph Lamar Johnson v. State of Indiana (NFP)
18A04-1206-CR-316
Criminal. Affirms sentence following conviction of Class D felony possession of marijuana after a jury found Johnson guilty of Class A misdemeanor possession of marijuana and found he had previously been convicted of possession of marijuana.

Anthony K. McCullough v. State of Indiana (NFP)
49A02-1110-CR-955
Criminal. Grants rehearing and reverses previous decision. Now affirms the revocation of McCullough’s probation.
 

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