ILNews

Opinions April 28, 2014

April 28, 2014
Keywords
Back to TopE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

Indiana Court of Appeals
John M. Weidman v. State of Indiana
03A01-1306-CR-255
Criminal. Affirms 14-year sentence following guilty pleas in two separate causes. Weidman specifically agreed in his plea agreement that he was not entitled to credit for the time he was on electronic monitoring as a condition of his release on bond. Accordingly, he may not now claim that he was entitled to credit for the time he was on electronic monitoring.

Sammie L. Booker-El v. State of Indiana (NFP)
48A02-1304-CR-366
Criminal. Affirms denial of motion for relief from judgment and motion to correct error.

Benjamin E. Freed v. State of Indiana (NFP)
63A04-1309-CR-458
Criminal. Affirms convictions and 45-year sentence for Class A felony attempted child molesting and Class C felony child molesting.

Richard L. Jones v. State of Indiana (NFP)
49A05-1308-CR-423
Criminal. Affirms conviction of Class B felony burglary.  

Trent D. Pope v. State of Indiana (NFP)

89A05-1307-CR-366
Criminal. Affirms conviction of Class B felony robbery and adjudication as a habitual offender.

Blake J. Drapeau v. State of Indiana (NFP)
82A01-1310-CR-466
Criminal. Affirms conviction of Class D felony residential entry.

John W. Dozier v. State of Indiana (NFP)
34A05-1311-CR-539
Criminal. Affirms revocation of probation and order Dozier serve his previously suspended sentence.

In the Matter of the Termination of the Parent-Child Relationship of: A.C. (Minor Child), and A.C.C. (Father) v. The Indiana Department of Child Services (NFP)
82A04-1309-JT-496
Juvenile. Affirms termination of parental rights.  http://media.ibj.com/Lawyer/websites/opinions/index.php?pdf=2014/april/04281406jsk.pdf

In the Matter of the Termination of the Parent-Child Relationship of D.S. and G.S., minor children, and A.C., Mother, A.C. v. Indiana Department of Child Services (NFP)
49A02-1309-JT-803
Juvenile. Affirms order terminating parental rights.

Carl R. Evanoff v. State of Indiana (NFP)
17A04-1309-CR-445
Criminal. Affirms 15-year sentence following guilty plea to Class B felony conspiracy to manufacture methamphetamine.

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
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. Major social engineering imposed by judicial order well in advance of democratic change, has been the story of the whole post ww2 period. Contraception, desegregation, abortion, gay marriage: all rammed down the throats of Americans who didn't vote to change existing laws on any such thing, by the unelected lifetime tenure Supreme court heirarchs. Maybe people came to accept those things once imposed upon them, but, that's accommodation not acceptance; and surely not democracy. So let's quit lying to the kids telling them this is a democracy. Some sort of oligarchy, but no democracy that's for sure, and it never was. A bourgeois republic from day one.

  2. JD Massur, yes, brings to mind a similar stand at a Texas Mission in 1836. Or Vladivostok in 1918. As you seemingly gloat, to the victors go the spoils ... let the looting begin, right?

  3. I always wondered why high fence deer hunting was frowned upon? I guess you need to keep the population steady. If you don't, no one can enjoy hunting! Thanks for the post! Fence

  4. Whether you support "gay marriage" or not is not the issue. The issue is whether the SCOTUS can extract from an unmentionable somewhere the notion that the Constitution forbids government "interference" in the "right" to marry. Just imagine time-traveling to Philadelphia in 1787. Ask James Madison if the document he and his fellows just wrote allowed him- or forbade government to "interfere" with- his "right" to marry George Washington? He would have immediately- and justly- summoned the Sergeant-at-Arms to throw your sorry self out into the street. Far from being a day of liberation, this is a day of capitulation by the Rule of Law to the Rule of What's Happening Now.

  5. With today's ruling, AG Zoeller's arguments in the cases of Obamacare and Same-sex Marriage can be relegated to the ash heap of history. 0-fer

ADVERTISEMENT