ILNews

Opinions April 23, 2014

April 23, 2014
Keywords
Back to TopE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

Indiana Court of Appeals
Matthew P. Wilhoite v. State of Indiana
34A04-1303-CR-138
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
50A03-1307-CR-297
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.
91A05-1312-PL-607
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
02A05-1305-DR-256
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)
64A03-1305-CR-189
Criminal. Affirms felony murder conviction.

Timothy Robertson v. State of Indiana (NFP)
27A02-1307-PC-646
Post conviction. Affirms denial of petition for post-conviction relief.

Vincent Smith v. State of Indiana (NFP)
49A04-1309-CR-443
Criminal. Affirms conviction of Class D felony criminal recklessness.

Nicole Snodgrass v. State of Indiana (NFP)
83A01-1308-CR-370
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)
49A05-1306-CR-313
Criminal. Affirms conviction of Class D felony sexual battery.

Nestor Canenguez-Ramirez v. State of Indiana (NFP)
20A04-1307-PC-371
Post conviction. Affirms denial of petition for post-conviction relief.

Raymond Cantu v. State of Indiana (NFP)
20A03-1301-CR-8
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)
05A02-1309-CR-823
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.

 

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. A traditional parade of attorneys? Really Evansville? Y'all need to get out more. When is the traditional parade of notaries? Nurses? Sanitation workers? Pole dancers? I gotta wonder, do throngs of admiring citizens gather to laud these marching servants of the constitution? "Show us your billing records!!!" Hoping some video gets posted. Ours is not a narcissistic profession by any chance, is it? Nah .....

  2. My previous comment not an aside at court. I agree with smith. Good call. Just thought posting here a bit on the if it bleeds it leads side. Most attorneys need to think of last lines of story above.

  3. Hello everyone I'm Gina and I'm here for the exact same thing you are. I have the wonderful joy of waking up every morning to my heart being pulled out and sheer terror of what DCS is going to Throw at me and my family today.Let me start from the !bebeginning.My daughter lost all rights to her 3beautiful children due to Severe mental issues she no longer lives in our state and has cut all ties.DCS led her to belive that once she done signed over her right the babies would be with their family. We have faught screamed begged and anything else we could possibly due I hired a lawyer five grand down the drain.You know all I want is my babies home.I've done everything they have even asked me to do.Now their saying I can't see my grandchildren cause I'M on a prescription for paipain.I have a very rare blood disease it causes cellulitis a form of blood poisoning to stay dormant in my tissues and nervous system it also causes a ,blood clotting disorder.even with the two blood thinners I'm on I still Continue to develop them them also.DCS knows about my illness and still they refuse to let me see my grandchildren. I Love and miss them so much Please can anyone help Us my grandchildren and I they should be worrying about what toy there going to play with but instead there worrying about if there ever coming home again.THANK YOU DCS FOR ALL YOU'VE DONE. ( And if anyone at all has any ideals or knows who can help. Please contact (765)960~5096.only serious callers

  4. He must be a Rethuglican, for if from the other side of the aisle such acts would be merely personal and thus not something that attaches to his professional life. AND ... gotta love this ... oh, and on top of talking dirty on the phone, he also, as an aside, guess we should mention, might be important, not sure, but .... "In addition to these allegations, Keaton was accused of failing to file an appeal after he collected advance payment from a client seeking to challenge a ruling that the client repay benefits because of unreported income." rimshot

  5. I am not a fan of some of the 8.4 discipline we have seen for private conduct-- but this was so egregious and abusive and had so many points of bad conduct relates to the law and the lawyer's status as a lawyer that it is clearly a proper and just disbarment. A truly despicable account of bad acts showing unfit character to practice law. I applaud the outcome.

ADVERTISEMENT