ILNews

Indiana Supreme Court accepts one case; denies transfer to seven

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

Indiana’s high court has granted transfer in a case that left the Court of Appeals divided.

In Corey Fletcher v. State of Indiana, Nos. 79S02-1204-CR-208 and 79A02-1009-CR-1096,  the Indiana Court of Appeals reversed a trial court’s denial of Corey Fletcher’s motion for discharge, but Judge Ezra Friedlander dissented.

The transfer list  shows six cases the justices unanimously denied transfer, and one that the court did not unanimously deny – Jerome Maxwell v. State of Indiana, No. 49A04-1101-CR-6. Justice Frank Sullivan would have granted transfer in that case, in which Jerome Maxwell raised several issues for review, including whether his conviction of two Class C felony child molesting charges violated double jeopardy.

Other cases denied transfer were: Alexander Gul v. City of Bloomington Housing and Neighborhood Development Department, No. 53A01-1106-OV-256; Justin L. Hargrove v. State of Indiana, No. 67A01-1103-CR-112; State of Indiana v. Johnnie S. McCaa, No. 56A04-1107-CR-341; Brett Zagorac v. State of Indiana, No. 64A03-1011-CR-589; In the Matter of the Estate of Melissa K. Patrick: Yvonne Griffith as Personal Representative of the Estate of Melissa K. Patrick v. Jason Patrick, No. 17A03-1104-ES-190; and Bart A. Dewald v. State of Indiana, No. 49A04-1101-CR-6.

 

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
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. Major social engineering imposed by judicial order well in advance of democratic change, has been the story of the whole post ww2 period. Contraception, desegregation, abortion, gay marriage: all rammed down the throats of Americans who didn't vote to change existing laws on any such thing, by the unelected lifetime tenure Supreme court heirarchs. Maybe people came to accept those things once imposed upon them, but, that's accommodation not acceptance; and surely not democracy. So let's quit lying to the kids telling them this is a democracy. Some sort of oligarchy, but no democracy that's for sure, and it never was. A bourgeois republic from day one.

  2. JD Massur, yes, brings to mind a similar stand at a Texas Mission in 1836. Or Vladivostok in 1918. As you seemingly gloat, to the victors go the spoils ... let the looting begin, right?

  3. I always wondered why high fence deer hunting was frowned upon? I guess you need to keep the population steady. If you don't, no one can enjoy hunting! Thanks for the post! Fence

  4. Whether you support "gay marriage" or not is not the issue. The issue is whether the SCOTUS can extract from an unmentionable somewhere the notion that the Constitution forbids government "interference" in the "right" to marry. Just imagine time-traveling to Philadelphia in 1787. Ask James Madison if the document he and his fellows just wrote allowed him- or forbade government to "interfere" with- his "right" to marry George Washington? He would have immediately- and justly- summoned the Sergeant-at-Arms to throw your sorry self out into the street. Far from being a day of liberation, this is a day of capitulation by the Rule of Law to the Rule of What's Happening Now.

  5. With today's ruling, AG Zoeller's arguments in the cases of Obamacare and Same-sex Marriage can be relegated to the ash heap of history. 0-fer

ADVERTISEMENT