ILNews

Opinions Aug. 29, 2014

August 29, 2014
Keywords
Back to TopE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

Indiana Court of Appeals
C.H. v. State of Indiana
49A02-1310-JV-904
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
45A03-1401-CR-8
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
53A05-1306-CR-274
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
82A04-1311-DR-592
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)
20A03-1312-DR-493
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)
49A05-1311-CR-552
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)
89A05-1403-CR-134
Criminal. Affirms aggregate 45-year sentence following guilty plea to several drug charges.

Calvin Turner v. State of Indiana (NFP)
48A04-1403-CR-96
Criminal. Affirms three-year aggregate sentence imposed for convictions of two counts of Class D felony theft.

Kalan Murphy v. State of Indiana (NFP)
71A03-1311-CR-433
Criminal. Affirms conviction of Class C felony battery with a deadly weapon.

Bruce Johnson-El v. State of Indiana (NFP)
09A02-1302-PC-270
Post conviction. Affirms denial of motion to correct error.

Herman Gehl, II v. State of Indiana (NFP)
59A01-1401-PC-12
Post conviction. Affirms denial of petition for post-conviction relief.

Colby R. McKnelly v. State of Indiana (NFP)
30A05-1307-CR-378
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)
49A05-1309-PL-462
Civil plenary. Affirms dismissal of complaint for failure to pay filing fees.

Quenton D. Davis v. State of Indiana (NFP)
02A05-1401-CR-28
Criminal. Affirms conviction of Class D felony domestic battery.

Jeffrey Elkins v. State of Indiana (NFP)
28A01-1404-CR-166
Criminal. Affirms sentence following guilty plea to Class D felony attempted theft.

Johnnylee Sims v. State of Indiana (NFP)
71A05-1403-CR-98
Criminal. Affirms conviction of Class C felony burglary.
 

ADVERTISEMENT

Sponsored by
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. Hmmmmm ..... How does the good doctor's spells work on tyrants and unelected bureacrats with nearly unchecked power employing in closed hearings employing ad hoc procedures? Just askin'. ... Happy independence day to any and all out there who are "free" ... Unlike me.

  2. Today, I want to use this opportunity to tell everyone about Dr agbuza of agbuzaodera(at)gmail. com, on how he help me reunited with my husband after 2 months of divorce.My husband divorce me because he saw another woman in his office and he said to me that he is no longer in love with me anymore and decide to divorce me.I seek help from the Net and i saw good talk about Dr agbuza and i contact him and explain my problem to him and he cast a spell for me which i use to get my husband back within 2 days.am totally happy because there is no reparations and side-effect. If you need his help Email him at agbuzaodera(at)gmail. com

  3. The practitioners and judges who hail E-filing as the Saviour of the West need to contain their respective excitements. E-filing is federal court requires the practitioner to cram his motion practice into pigeonholes created by IT people. Compound motions or those seeking alternative relief are effectively barred, unless the practitioner wants to receive a tart note from some functionary admonishing about the "problem". E-filing is just another method by which courts and judges transfer their burden to practitioners, who are the really the only powerless components of the system. Of COURSE it is easier for the court to require all of its imput to conform to certain formats, but this imposition does NOT improve the quality of the practice of law and does NOT improve the ability of the practitioner to advocate for his client or to fashion pleadings that exactly conform to his client's best interests. And we should be very wary of the disingenuous pablum about the costs. The courts will find a way to stick it to the practitioner. Lake County is a VERY good example of this rapaciousness. Any one who does not believe this is invited to review the various special fees that system imposes upon practitioners- as practitioners- and upon each case ON TOP of the court costs normal in every case manually filed. Jurisprudence according to Aldous Huxley.

  4. Any attorneys who practice in federal court should be able to say the same as I can ... efiling is great. I have been doing it in fed court since it started way back. Pacer has its drawbacks, but the ability to hit an e-docket and pull up anything and everything onscreen is a huge plus for a litigator, eps the sole practitioner, who lacks a filing clerk and the paralegal support of large firms. Were I an Indiana attorney I would welcome this great step forward.

  5. Can we get full disclosure on lobbyist's payments to legislatures such as Mr Buck? AS long as there are idiots that are disrespectful of neighbors and intent on shooting fireworks every night, some kind of regulations are needed.

ADVERTISEMENT