Opinions April 23, 2014

April 23, 2014
Back to TopE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

Indiana Court of Appeals
Matthew P. Wilhoite v. State of Indiana
Criminal. Affirms conviction of Class B felony “conspiracy to commit attempted armed robbery.” Wilhoite argued his conviction is invalid because a person may not be convicted of “conspiring to attempt” any crime. Although the state referenced a non-existent crime when it listed “conspiracy to commit attempted robbery” on the charging information as the crime committed, Wilhoite has not demonstrated fundamental error.  

Charla P. Richard v. State of Indiana
Criminal. Affirms conviction of Class D felony possession of methamphetamine. Richard’s arrest and the subsequent search of the vehicle she was riding in did not violate the Fourth Amendment or Article I, Section 11 of the Indiana Constitution.

Co-Alliance, LLP v. Monticello Farm Service, Inc.
Civil plenary. Affirms the trial court’s determination that the subordination agreement between Monticello Farm Service and First Farmers Bank & Trust gave Monticello first claim on the remaining $181,000 in 2010 crop proceeds. Concludes Indiana should follow the majority rule on agreements to modify the priority of liens securing interests in a borrower’s assets. Recognizing such agreements is consistent with the Uniform Commercial Code and Indiana common law.

In re the Marriage of: Jose de Jesus Carrillo Perez and Maria Guadalupe Carrillo Perez, Maria Guadalupe Vidrios Zepeda f/k/a Maria Guadalupe Carrillo Perez v. Jose de Jesus Carrillo Perez
Domestic relation. Affirms awarding Maria Guadalupe Carrillo Perez the equivalent of 2.5 percent of ex-husband Jose de Jesus Carrillo Perez’s lottery winnings. Because the language of her ex-husband’s admission did not preclude the trial court from awarding Maria only 2.5 percent of his lottery proceeds and Maria fails to overcome the strong presumption that the trial court considered and complied with the applicable statute, the trial court did not abuse its discretion.

Dustin E. McCowan v. State of Indiana (NFP)
Criminal. Affirms felony murder conviction.

Timothy Robertson v. State of Indiana (NFP)
Post conviction. Affirms denial of petition for post-conviction relief.

Vincent Smith v. State of Indiana (NFP)
Criminal. Affirms conviction of Class D felony criminal recklessness.

Nicole Snodgrass v. State of Indiana (NFP)
Criminal. Affirms sentence for two counts of Class B felony dealing in a Schedule II controlled substance and three counts of Class D felony theft.

Dalvinder Singh v. State of Indiana (NFP)
Criminal. Affirms conviction of Class D felony sexual battery.

Nestor Canenguez-Ramirez v. State of Indiana (NFP)
Post conviction. Affirms denial of petition for post-conviction relief.

Raymond Cantu v. State of Indiana (NFP)
Criminal. Affirms convictions of Class A felony child molesting, Class C felony child molesting and Class A felony attempted child molesting.

Joseph Pennington v. State of Indiana (NFP)
Criminal. Affirms sentence for Class B felony sexual misconduct with a minor.

The Indiana Supreme Court and Tax Court posted no opinions by IL deadline. The 7th Circuit Court of Appeals posted no Indiana decisions by IL deadline.



Sponsored by
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. This is ridiculous. Most JDs not practicing law don't know squat to justify calling themselves a lawyer. Maybe they should try visiting the inside of a courtroom before they go around calling themselves lawyers. This kind of promotional BS just increases the volume of people with JDs that are underqualified thereby dragging all the rest of us down likewise.

  2. I think it is safe to say that those Hoosier's with the most confidence in the Indiana judicial system are those Hoosier's who have never had the displeasure of dealing with the Hoosier court system.

  3. I have an open CHINS case I failed a urine screen I have since got clean completed IOP classes now in after care passed home inspection my x sister in law has my children I still don't even have unsupervised when I have been clean for over 4 months my x sister wants to keep the lids for good n has my case working with her I just discovered n have proof that at one of my hearing dcs case worker stated in court to the judge that a screen was dirty which caused me not to have unsupervised this was at the beginning two weeks after my initial screen I thought the weed could have still been in my system was upset because they were suppose to check levels n see if it was going down since this was only a few weeks after initial instead they said dirty I recently requested all of my screens from redwood because I take prescriptions that will show up n I was having my doctor look at levels to verify that matched what I was prescripted because dcs case worker accused me of abuseing when I got my screens I found out that screen I took that dcs case worker stated in court to judge that caused me to not get granted unsupervised was actually negative what can I do about this this is a serious issue saying a parent failed a screen in court to judge when they didn't please advise

  4. I have a degree at law, recent MS in regulatory studies. Licensed in KS, admitted b4 S& 7th circuit, but not to Indiana bar due to political correctness. Blacklisted, nearly unemployable due to hostile state action. Big Idea: Headwinds can overcome, esp for those not within the contours of the bell curve, the Lego Movie happiness set forth above. That said, even without the blacklisting for holding ideas unacceptable to the Glorious State, I think the idea presented above that a law degree open many vistas other than being a galley slave to elitist lawyers is pretty much laughable. (Did the law professors of Indiana pay for this to be published?)

  5. Joe, you might want to do some reading on the fate of Hoosier whistleblowers before you get your expectations raised up.