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. IF the Right to Vote is indeed a Right, then it is a RIGHT. That is the same for ALL eligible and properly registered voters. And this is, being able to cast one's vote - until the minute before the polls close in one's assigned precinct. NOT days before by absentee ballot, and NOT 9 miles from one's house (where it might be a burden to get to in time). I personally wait until the last minute to get in line. Because you never know what happens. THAT is my right, and that is Mr. Valenti's. If it is truly so horrible to let him on school grounds (exactly how many children are harmed by those required to register, on school grounds, on election day - seriously!), then move the polling place to a different location. For ALL voters in that precinct. Problem solved.

  2. "associates are becoming more mercenary. The path to partnership has become longer and more difficult so they are chasing short-term gains like high compensation." GOOD FOR THEM! HELL THERE OUGHT TO BE A UNION!

  3. Let's be honest. A glut of lawyers out there, because law schools have overproduced them. Law schools dont care, and big law loves it. So the firms can afford to underpay them. Typical capitalist situation. Wages have grown slowly for entry level lawyers the past 25 years it seems. Just like the rest of our economy. Might as well become a welder. Oh and the big money is mostly reserved for those who can log huge hours and will cut corners to get things handled. More capitalist joy. So the answer coming from the experts is to "capitalize" more competition from nonlawyers, and robots. ie "expert systems." One even hears talk of "offshoring" some legal work. thus undercutting the workers even more. And they wonder why people have been pulling for Bernie and Trump. Hello fools, it's not just the "working class" it's the overly educated suffering too.

  4. And with a whimpering hissy fit the charade came to an end ... http://baltimore.cbslocal.com/2016/07/27/all-charges-dropped-against-all-remaining-officers-in-freddie-gray-case/ WHISTLEBLOWERS are needed more than ever in a time such as this ... when politics trump justice and emotions trump reason. Blue Lives Matter.

  5. "pedigree"? I never knew that in order to become a successful or, for that matter, a talented attorney, one needs to have come from good stock. What should raise eyebrows even more than the starting associates' pay at this firm (and ones like it) is the belief systems they subscribe to re who is and isn't "fit" to practice law with them. Incredible the arrogance that exists throughout the practice of law in this country, especially at firms like this one.

ADVERTISEMENT