Opinions Aug. 29, 2014

August 29, 2014
Back to TopE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

Indiana Court of Appeals
C.H. v. State of Indiana
Juvenile. Affirms officer’s stop of C.H. because he was believed to be a suspect in a crime and the order of restitution because C.H. never objected to the order he pay restitution. Reverses adjudication of what would be Class B misdemeanor unlawful entry of a motor vehicle because the same evidence was used to adjudicate C.H. of that charge and what would be Class A misdemeanor trespass. Remands for further proceedings.

Ronald DeWayne Thompson v. State of Indiana
Criminal. Reverses convictions of Class A felony rape and Class B felony criminal deviate conduct because the trial court erred when it admitted evidence Thompson was a suspect in another sexual assault case. That evidence was inadmissible under Evidence Rule 404(b) and was prejudicial. Remands for a new trial.

Thomas D. Dillman v. State of Indiana
Criminal. Affirms denial of motion for the trial court to release Dillman’s cash bond. The state concedes that the trial court was not statutorily authorized to retain his cash bond, but the trial court did not abuse its discretion because Dillman waived his argument, and the error was not fundamental.

David Hooker v. Shari Hooker
Domestic relation. Affirms modification of David Hooker’s child support obligation. The trial court did not abuse its discretion by reducing his child support payment nor did it violate his due process rights.

Julianna Eagan, formerly Julianna Paciorkowski v. Christopher Paciorkowski (NFP)
Domestic relation. Affirms determination that daughter J.P. repudiated her relationship with her father so he was no longer obligated to pay her educational expenses.

Julius J. Rice v. State of Indiana (NFP)
Criminal. Affirms convictions of Class B felony criminal confinement, Class D felony criminal recklessness and Class A misdemeanor battery.

John Palatas v. State of Indiana (NFP)
Criminal. Affirms aggregate 45-year sentence following guilty plea to several drug charges.

Calvin Turner v. State of Indiana (NFP)
Criminal. Affirms three-year aggregate sentence imposed for convictions of two counts of Class D felony theft.

Kalan Murphy v. State of Indiana (NFP)
Criminal. Affirms conviction of Class C felony battery with a deadly weapon.

Bruce Johnson-El v. State of Indiana (NFP)
Post conviction. Affirms denial of motion to correct error.

Herman Gehl, II v. State of Indiana (NFP)
Post conviction. Affirms denial of petition for post-conviction relief.

Colby R. McKnelly v. State of Indiana (NFP)
Criminal. Affirms convictions and sentence for murder and Class C felony battery with a deadly weapon. Remands to correct an error in the abstract of judgment.

Charles E. Justise, Sr. v. Indiana Department of Correction (NFP)
Civil plenary. Affirms dismissal of complaint for failure to pay filing fees.

Quenton D. Davis v. State of Indiana (NFP)
Criminal. Affirms conviction of Class D felony domestic battery.

Jeffrey Elkins v. State of Indiana (NFP)
Criminal. Affirms sentence following guilty plea to Class D felony attempted theft.

Johnnylee Sims v. State of Indiana (NFP)
Criminal. Affirms conviction of Class C felony burglary.


Sponsored by
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. I think the cops are doing a great job locking up criminals. The Murder rates in the inner cities are skyrocketing and you think that too any people are being incarcerated. Maybe we need to lock up more of them. We have the ACLU, BLM, NAACP, Civil right Division of the DOJ, the innocent Project etc. We have court system with an appeal process that can go on for years, with attorneys supplied by the government. I'm confused as to how that translates into the idea that the defendants are not being represented properly. Maybe the attorneys need to do more Pro-Bono work

  2. We do not have 10% of our population (which would mean about 32 million) incarcerated. It's closer to 2%.

  3. If a class action suit or other manner of retribution is possible, count me in. I have email and voicemail from the man. He colluded with opposing counsel, I am certain. My case was damaged so severely it nearly lost me everything and I am still paying dearly.

  4. There's probably a lot of blame that can be cast around for Indiana Tech's abysmal bar passage rate this last February. The folks who decided that Indiana, a state with roughly 16,000 to 18,000 attorneys, needs a fifth law school need to question the motives that drove their support of this project. Others, who have been "strong supporters" of the law school, should likewise ask themselves why they believe this institution should be supported. Is it because it fills some real need in the state? Or is it, instead, nothing more than a resume builder for those who teach there part-time? And others who make excuses for the students' poor performance, especially those who offer nothing more than conspiracy theories to back up their claims--who are they helping? What evidence do they have to support their posturing? Ultimately, though, like most everything in life, whether one succeeds or fails is entirely within one's own hands. At least one student from Indiana Tech proved this when he/she took and passed the February bar. A second Indiana Tech student proved this when they took the bar in another state and passed. As for the remaining 9 who took the bar and didn't pass (apparently, one of the students successfully appealed his/her original score), it's now up to them (and nobody else) to ensure that they pass on their second attempt. These folks should feel no shame; many currently successful practicing attorneys failed the bar exam on their first try. These same attorneys picked themselves up, dusted themselves off, and got back to the rigorous study needed to ensure they would pass on their second go 'round. This is what the Indiana Tech students who didn't pass the first time need to do. Of course, none of this answers such questions as whether Indiana Tech should be accredited by the ABA, whether the school should keep its doors open, or, most importantly, whether it should have even opened its doors in the first place. Those who promoted the idea of a fifth law school in Indiana need to do a lot of soul-searching regarding their decisions. These same people should never be allowed, again, to have a say about the future of legal education in this state or anywhere else. Indiana already has four law schools. That's probably one more than it really needs. But it's more than enough.

  5. This man Steve Hubbard goes on any online post or forum he can find and tries to push his company. He said court reporters would be obsolete a few years ago, yet here we are. How does he have time to search out every single post about court reporters and even spy in private court reporting forums if his company is so successful???? Dude, get a life. And back to what this post was about, I agree that some national firms cause a huge problem.