ILNews

Opinions Aug. 11, 2014

August 11, 2014
Keywords
Back to TopE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

Indiana Court of Appeals
Dwight Hayes v. State of Indiana
49A04-1312-CR-619
Criminal. Affirms conviction for Class A misdemeanor pointing a firearm. Finds the trial court properly rejected Hayes’ proposed jury instructions based on Indiana’s stand-your-ground law because there was no evidence that his property was being attacked when he pointed two handguns at a woman trying to serve him with legal documents.

L.C. Westervelt, Margaret Fox, Joe Dan Trigg, Attorney-in-Fact and Trustee for Lillian Guild, Marilyn Guild, Ramah Lee Jones, Janice Trigg, et al. v. George Woodcock III, d/b/a West Drilling Company
65A01-1311-PL-501
Civil plenary. Reverses summary judgment against Carolyn Sue Stinson and remands to the trial court to enter summary judgment for Stinson. The Posey Circuit Court determined Stinson’s ownership in a mineral interest had lapsed. However, the Court of Appeals found the judgment for Woodcock was in error because Stinson had paid taxes which prevented the lapse of her mineral interest. Judge Mark Bailey concurred in result.  

Colton Milam v. State of Indiana
49A02-1312-CR-998
Criminal. Reverses conviction of Class B misdemeanor public intoxication, finding there is insufficient evidence to sustain the conviction.

Marcus Richardson v. Wendy Knight
48A04-1312-MI-625
Miscellaneous. Affirms trial court’s transfer of Marcus Richardson’s petition for writ of habeas corpus from Madison Circuit Court to the sentencing Marion Superior Court. Because the petition is an attack on the validity of Richardson’s conviction of murder and 60-year sentence, it is to be treated as a petition for post-conviction relief and must be transferred to the sentencing court.

Micah T. Lminggio v. State of Indiana (NFP)
79A04-1312-CR-635
Criminal. Affirms convictions of Class A felony dealing in a narcotic drug and two counts of Class B felony possession of a firearm by a serious violent felon.

Kevin L. Curry v. State of Indiana (NFP)
20A03-1312-PC-513
Post conviction. Affirms denial of post-conviction relief.

In the Matter of the Commitment of E.L., E.L. v. Indiana University Health Bloomington Hospital and Carey Mayer, M.D. (NFP)
53A01-1402-MH-66
Mental health. Affirms involuntary mental health commitment, order for forced medication and order for transport to Richmond State Hospital.

Mike Meyer, Trustee v. Susan Orth, Allen County Treasurer, and Tera K. Klutz, Allen County Auditor, LRB Holdings, Inc. v. Mark Linker, Deborah Linker, America's Wholesale Lender, et al. (NFP)
02A03-1310-MI-397
Miscellaneous. Affirms denial of motion to vacate judgment.

James Mantz v. State of Indiana (NFP)
49A05-1304-CR-200
Criminal. Dismisses motion for immediate discharge from unlawful imprisonment.  

Robert D. Bowen v. State of Indiana (NFP)
08A02-1312-CR-1078
Criminal. Affirms resentencing on remand from Indiana Supreme Court.

Lisa Ritchie v. State of Indiana (NFP)
20A04-1306-CR-286
Criminal. Affirms denial of motion to correct erroneous sentence.

Jimmie T. Bowen v. State of Indiana (NFP)
45A04-1312-CR-631
Criminal. Affirms three-year sentence of Class D felony theft.

Bulent Colak v. State of Indiana (NFP)
82A01-1312-CR-557
Criminal. Affirms conviction of Class D felony battery.

John Anthony v. State of Indiana (NFP)
49A02-1312-CR-1033
Criminal. Affirms conviction of Class A misdemeanor criminal mischief.

Christopher Woodburn v. State of Indiana (NFP)
71A05-1312-CR-638
Criminal. Affirms conviction of Class D felony domestic battery.

In the Matter of the Termination of the Parent-Child Relationship of: T.D. and M.D. (minor children); A.D. (Father) v. The Indiana Department of Child Services (NFP)
82A01-1308-JT-344
Juvenile. Affirms termination of parental rights.

Chanse T. Starr v. State of Indiana (NFP)
90A02-1306-CR-499
Criminal. Affirms eight-year sentence for conviction of Class C felony burglary served consecutively to a previous conviction of Class C felony corrupt business influence.
 
Gerardo Nino Romero v. State of Indiana (NFP)
02A03-1208-PC-379
Post conviction. Affirms denial of post-conviction relief.
 
Donald Woods v. State of Indiana (NFP)
49A02-1310-PC-858
Post conviction. Affirms denial of post-conviction relief.
 
Christopher Lawson v. State of Indiana (NFP)
79A02-1307-CR-664
Criminal. Affirms aggregate 20-year sentence for convictions of Class B felony possession of a narcotic drug within 1,000 feet of a family housing complex, two counts of Class D felony neglect of a dependent and Class A misdemeanor possession of paraphernalia.

Robert Hoffman v. State of Indiana (NFP)
71A03-1401-CR-41
Criminal. Affirms in part, reverses in part and remands. Affirms conviction of Class D felony strangulation, but reverses imposition of a domestic violence fee and remands with instructions to vacate that part of the judgment.
 

ADVERTISEMENT

Sponsored by

facebook - twitter on Facebook & Twitter

Indiana State Bar Association

Indianapolis Bar Association

Evansville Bar Association

Allen County Bar Association

Indiana Lawyer on Facebook

facebook
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. It's a big fat black mark against the US that they radicalized a lot of these Afghan jihadis in the 80s to fight the soviets and then when they predictably got around to biting the hand that fed them, the US had to invade their homelands, install a bunch of corrupt drug kingpins and kleptocrats, take these guys and torture the hell out of them. Why for example did the US have to sodomize them? Dubya said "they hate us for our freedoms!" Here, try some of that freedom whether you like it or not!!! Now they got even more reasons to hate us-- lets just keep bombing the crap out of their populations, installing more puppet regimes, arming one faction against another, etc etc etc.... the US is becoming a monster. No wonder they hate us. Here's my modest recommendation. How about we follow "Just War" theory in the future. St Augustine had it right. How about we treat these obvious prisoners of war according to the Geneva convention instead of torturing them in sadistic and perverted ways.

  2. As usual, John is "spot-on." The subtle but poignant points he makes are numerous and warrant reflection by mediators and users. Oh but were it so simple.

  3. ACLU. Way to step up against the police state. I see a lot of things from the ACLU I don't like but this one is a gold star in its column.... instead of fighting it the authorities should apologize and back off.

  4. Duncan, It's called the RIGHT OF ASSOCIATION and in the old days people believed it did apply to contracts and employment. Then along came title vii.....that aside, I believe that I am free to work or not work for whomever I like regardless: I don't need a law to tell me I'm free. The day I really am compelled to ignore all the facts of social reality in my associations and I blithely go along with it, I'll be a slave of the state. That day is not today......... in the meantime this proposed bill would probably be violative of 18 usc sec 1981 that prohibits discrimination in contracts... a law violated regularly because who could ever really expect to enforce it along the millions of contracts made in the marketplace daily? Some of these so-called civil rights laws are unenforceable and unjust Utopian Social Engineering. Forcing people to love each other will never work.

  5. I am the father of a sweet little one-year-old named girl, who happens to have Down Syndrome. To anyone who reads this who may be considering the decision to terminate, please know that your child will absolutely light up your life as my daughter has the lives of everyone around her. There is no part of me that condones abortion of a child on the basis that he/she has or might have Down Syndrome. From an intellectual standpoint, however, I question the enforceability of this potential law. As it stands now, the bill reads in relevant part as follows: "A person may not intentionally perform or attempt to perform an abortion . . . if the person knows that the pregnant woman is seeking the abortion solely because the fetus has been diagnosed with Down syndrome or a potential diagnosis of Down syndrome." It includes similarly worded provisions abortion on "any other disability" or based on sex selection. It goes so far as to make the medical provider at least potentially liable for wrongful death. First, how does a medical provider "know" that "the pregnant woman is seeking the abortion SOLELY" because of anything? What if the woman says she just doesn't want the baby - not because of the diagnosis - she just doesn't want him/her? Further, how can the doctor be liable for wrongful death, when a Child Wrongful Death claim belongs to the parents? Is there any circumstance in which the mother's comparative fault will not exceed the doctor's alleged comparative fault, thereby barring the claim? If the State wants to discourage women from aborting their children because of a Down Syndrome diagnosis, I'm all for that. Purporting to ban it with an unenforceable law, however, is not the way to effectuate this policy.

ADVERTISEMENT