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
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. No second amendment, pro life, pro traditional marriage, reagan or trump tshirts will be sold either. And you cannot draw Mohammed even in your own notebook. And you must wear a helmet at all times while at the fair. And no lawyer jokes can be told except in the designated protest area. And next year no crucifixes, since they are uber offensive to all but Catholics. Have a nice bland day here in the Lego movie. Remember ... Everything is awesome comrades.

  2. Thank you for this post . I just bought a LG External DVD It came with Cyber pwr 2 go . It would not play on Lenovo Idea pad w/8.1 . Your recommended free VLC worked great .

  3. All these sites putting up all the crap they do making Brent Look like A Monster like he's not a good person . First off th fight actually started not because of Brent but because of one of his friends then when the fight popped off his friend ran like a coward which left Brent to fend for himself .It IS NOT a crime to defend yourself 3 of them and 1 of him . just so happened he was a better fighter. I'm Brent s wife so I know him personally and up close . He's a very caring kind loving man . He's not abusive in any way . He is a loving father and really shouldn't be where he is not for self defense . Now because of one of his stupid friends trying to show off and turning out to be nothing but a coward and leaving Brent to be jumped by 3 men not only is Brent suffering but Me his wife , his kids abd step kidshis mom and brother his family is left to live without him abd suffering in more ways then one . that man was and still is my smile ....he's the one real thing I've ever had in my life .....f@#@ You Lafayette court system . Learn to do your jobs right he maybe should have gotten that year for misdemeanor battery but that s it . not one person can stand to me and tell me if u we're in a fight facing 3 men and u just by yourself u wouldn't fight back that you wouldn't do everything u could to walk away to ur family ur kids That's what Brent is guilty of trying to defend himself against 3 men he wanted to go home tohisfamily worse then they did he just happened to be a better fighter and he got the best of th others . what would you do ? Stand there lay there and be stomped and beaten or would u give it everything u got and fight back ? I'd of done the same only I'm so smallid of probably shot or stabbed or picked up something to use as a weapon . if it was me or them I'd do everything I could to make sure I was going to live that I would make it hone to see my kids and husband . I Love You Brent Anthony Forever & Always .....Soul 1 baby

  4. Good points, although this man did have a dog in the legal fight as that it was his mother on trial ... and he a dependent. As for parking spaces, handicap spots for pregnant women sure makes sense to me ... er, I mean pregnant men or women. (Please, I meant to include pregnant men the first time, not Room 101 again, please not Room 101 again. I love BB)

  5. I have no doubt that the ADA and related laws provide that many disabilities must be addressed. The question, however, is "by whom?" Many people get dealt bad cards by life. Some are deaf. Some are blind. Some are crippled. Why is it the business of the state to "collectivize" these problems and to force those who are NOT so afflicted to pay for those who are? The fact that this litigant was a mere spectator and not a party is chilling. What happens when somebody who speaks only East Bazurkistanish wants a translator so that he can "understand" the proceedings in a case in which he has NO interest? Do I and all other taxpayers have to cough up? It would seem so. ADA should be amended to provide a simple rule: "Your handicap, YOUR problem". This would apply particularly to handicapped parking spaces, where it seems that if the "handicap" is an ingrown toenail, the government comes rushing in to assist the poor downtrodden victim. I would grant wounded vets (IED victims come to mind in particular) a pass on this.. but others? Nope.

ADVERTISEMENT