ILNews

COA travels to Lafayette, IU campuses

IL Staff
January 1, 2008
Keywords
Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share
The Indiana Court of Appeals will visit three Indiana colleges April 8 and 9 to hear arguments in cases regarding child molestation, defamatory statements, and ineffective counsel.

Judges will visit Ivy Tech Community College in Lafayette Tuesday to hear arguments regarding a case on appeal from Lake Superior Court. Arguments for Victor Vega Torres v. State of Indiana, 45A03-0708-CR-385, begin at 10 a.m. in Ivy Hall. Judges Ezra Friedlander, Margret Robb, and Cale Bradford will have to decide whether Torres' maximum sentence of eight years following a guilty plea to child molesting is inappropriate in light of the nature of the offense and the fact he has a history of mental illness.

Also on Tuesday, Judges James Kirsch, Melissa May, and Patricia Riley will hear arguments in Thomas Williams and Sanford Kelsey v. Kelly E. Tharp and Papa John's USA, Inc., 29A02-0707-CV-625, at 5 p.m. at Indiana University School of Law - Indianapolis in the Wynne Courtroom in Inlow Hall. At issue in the case on appeal from Hamilton Circuit Court is whether the trial court erred in finding Tharp did not make defamatory statements by telling police that Williams and Kelsey pulled a gun when they picked up a pizza from a Papa John's restaurant. The court will also have to decide if the trial court erred in ruling Tharp didn't act intentionally or in an extreme or outrageous manner.

On Wednesday, the three-judge panel of Bradford, May, and L. Mark Bailey travel to Indiana University Southeast in New Albany to hear arguments in Charles Sweeney v. State of Indiana, 10A01-0707-PC-303, at 12:30 p.m. in the Hoosier Room West in the University Center North building. The appellate court is asked to decide whether Sweeney deserves post-conviction relief because of ineffective counsel following his conviction of murder and sentence of 60 years. The case is on appeal from Clark Circuit Court.
ADVERTISEMENT

Post a comment to this story

COMMENTS POLICY
We reserve the right to remove any post that we feel is obscene, profane, vulgar, racist, sexually explicit, abusive, or hateful.
 
You are legally responsible for what you post and your anonymity is not guaranteed.
 
Posts that insult, defame, threaten, harass or abuse other readers or people mentioned in Indiana Lawyer editorial content are also subject to removal. Please respect the privacy of individuals and refrain from posting personal information.
 
No solicitations, spamming or advertisements are allowed. Readers may post links to other informational websites that are relevant to the topic at hand, but please do not link to objectionable material.
 
We may remove messages that are unrelated to the topic, encourage illegal activity, use all capital letters or are unreadable.
 

Messages that are flagged by readers as objectionable will be reviewed and may or may not be removed. Please do not flag a post simply because you disagree with it.

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. Family court judges never fail to surprise me with their irrational thinking. First of all any man who abuses his wife is not fit to be a parent. A man who can't control his anger should not be allowed around his child unsupervised period. Just because he's never been convicted of abusing his child doesn't mean he won't and maybe he hasn't but a man that has such poor judgement and control is not fit to parent without oversight - only a moron would think otherwise. Secondly, why should the mother have to pay? He's the one who made the poor decisions to abuse and he should be the one to pay the price - monetarily and otherwise. Yes it's sad that the little girl may be deprived of her father, but really what kind of father is he - the one that abuses her mother the one that can't even step up and do what's necessary on his own instead the abused mother is to pay for him???? What is this Judge thinking? Another example of how this world rewards bad behavior and punishes those who do right. Way to go Judge - NOT.

  2. Right on. Legalize it. We can take billions away from the drug cartels and help reduce violence in central America and more unwanted illegal immigration all in one fell swoop. cut taxes on the savings from needless incarcerations. On and stop eroding our fourth amendment freedom or whatever's left of it.

  3. "...a switch from crop production to hog production "does not constitute a significant change."??? REALLY?!?! Any judge that cannot see a significant difference between a plant and an animal needs to find another line of work.

  4. Why do so many lawyers get away with lying in court, Jamie Yoak?

  5. Future generations will be amazed that we prosecuted people for possessing a harmless plant. The New York Times came out in favor of legalization in Saturday's edition of the newspaper.

ADVERTISEMENT