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 state's high court has spoken, the fair question is answered. Years ago the Seventh Circuit footnoted the following in the context of court access: "[2] Dr. Bowman's report specifically stated that Brown "firmly believes he is obligated as a Christian to put obedience to God's laws above human laws." Dr. Bowman further noted that Brown expressed "devaluing attitudes towards pharmacological or psycho-therapeutic mental health treatment" and that he made "sarcastic remarks devaluing authority of all types, especially mental health authority and the abortion industry." 668 F.3d 437 (2012) SUCH acid testing of statist orthodoxy is just and meet in Indiana. SUCH INQUISITIONS have been green lighted. Christians and conservatives beware.

  2. It was all that kept us from tyranny. So sad that so few among the elite cared enough to guard the sacred trust. Nobody has a more sacred obligation to obey the law than those who make the law. Sophocles No man is above the law and no man is below it; nor do we ask any man's permission when we ask him to obey it. Obedience to the law is demanded as a right; not asked as a favor. Theodore Roosevelt That was the ideal ... here is the Hoosier reality: The King can do no wrong. Legal maxim From the Latin 'Rex non potest peccare'. When the President does it, that means that it is not illegal. Richard Nixon

  3. So men who think they are girls at heart can use the lady's potty? Usually the longer line is for the women's loo, so, the ladies may be the ones to experience temporary gender dysphoria, who knows? Is it ok to joke about his or is that hate? I may need a brainwash too, hey! I may just object to my own comment, later, if I get myself properly "oriented"

  4. Heritage, what Heritage? The New Age is dawning .... an experiment in disordered liberty and social fragmentation is upon us .... "Carmel City Council approved a human rights ordinance with a 4-3 vote Monday night after hearing about two hours of divided public testimony. The ordinance bans discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation or gender identity, among other traits. Council members Rick Sharp, Carol Schleif, Sue Finkam and Ron Carter voted in favor of it. The three council members opposing it—Luci Snyder, Kevin Rider and Eric Seidensticker—all said they were against any form of discrimination, but had issues with the wording and possible unintended consequences of the proposal." Kardashian is the new Black.

  5. Can anyone please tell me if anyone is appealing the law that certain sex offenders can't be on school property. How is somebody supposed to watch their children's sports games or graduations, this law needs revised such as sex offenders that are on school property must have another non-offender adult with them at all times while on school property. That they must go to the event and then leave directly afterwards. This is only going to hurt the children of the offenders and the father/ son mother/ daughter vice versa relationship. Please email me and let me know if there is a group that is appealing this for reasons other than voting and religion. Thank you.