High court grants 3 transfers

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

The Indiana Supreme Court granted transfer Thursday to three cases involving a murder conviction, a request for post-conviction relief, and the appointment of counsel for a mother involved in a termination proceeding.  

In James A. Carr v. State of Indiana, No. 25S04-1004-CR-219, James Carr appealed his murder conviction, which the Indiana Court of Appeals upheld. The appellate court held that Carr’s proceedings didn’t violate the speedy-trial provisions of Indiana Criminal Rule 4; Carr’s confession to law enforcement was not procured in violation of his Miranda rights; the trial court did not err by prohibiting cross-examination into Carr’s level of intoxication during his custodial interrogation; and the court did not err by refusing to instruct the jury on various lesser-included offenses.

In State of Indiana v. Craig Cooper,  No. 49S02-1004-PC-220, the appellate court affirmed the grant of Cooper’s request for post-conviction relief. He showed the requisite prejudice because he wouldn’t have pleaded guilty to the charged offense of operating a vehicle while an habitual traffic violator had he known there was no basis for that charge. He was prejudiced by the inadequate factual basis that was presented at the guilty plea hearing. Judge Margret Robb dissented because she didn’t believe Cooper demonstrated he was prejudiced by the error.

In Termination of parent-child relationship of I.B.; M.L. v. IDCS, No. 03S05-1004-JV-218, the Court of Appeals affirmed the denial of the motion to appoint counsel to appeal the termination of mother M.L.’s parental relationship with I.B. Mother failed to carry her burden as an indigent person to show the trial court she met the statutory requirements for the appointment of counsel. She didn’t even request the appellate counsel representation; her trial counsel did.


Post a comment to this story

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
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. So men who think they are girls at heart can use the lady's potty? Usually the longer line is for the women's loo, so, the ladies may be the ones to experience temporary gender dysphoria, who knows? Is it ok to joke about his or is that hate? I may need a brainwash too, hey! I may just object to my own comment, later, if I get myself properly "oriented"

  2. Heritage, what Heritage? The New Age is dawning .... an experiment in disordered liberty and social fragmentation is upon us .... "Carmel City Council approved a human rights ordinance with a 4-3 vote Monday night after hearing about two hours of divided public testimony. The ordinance bans discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation or gender identity, among other traits. Council members Rick Sharp, Carol Schleif, Sue Finkam and Ron Carter voted in favor of it. The three council members opposing it—Luci Snyder, Kevin Rider and Eric Seidensticker—all said they were against any form of discrimination, but had issues with the wording and possible unintended consequences of the proposal." Kardashian is the new Black.

  3. Can anyone please tell me if anyone is appealing the law that certain sex offenders can't be on school property. How is somebody supposed to watch their children's sports games or graduations, this law needs revised such as sex offenders that are on school property must have another non-offender adult with them at all times while on school property. That they must go to the event and then leave directly afterwards. This is only going to hurt the children of the offenders and the father/ son mother/ daughter vice versa relationship. Please email me and let me know if there is a group that is appealing this for reasons other than voting and religion. Thank you.

  4. Should any attorney who argues against the abortion industry, or presents arguments based upon the Founders' concept of Higher Law, (like that marriage precedes the State) have to check in with the Judges and Lawyers Assistance Program for a mandatory mental health review? Some think so ... that could certainly cut down on cases such as this "cluttering up" the SCOTUS docket ... use JLAP to deny all uber conservative attorneys licenses and uber conservative representation will tank. If the ends justify the means, why not?

  5. Tell them sherry Mckay told you to call, they're trying to get all the people that have been wronged and held unlawfully to sign up on this class action lawsuit.