ILNews

Justices adopt appellate court findings

Back to TopE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

The Indiana Supreme Court issued a pair of short per curiam opinions on Thursday afternoon that adopt what the Indiana Court of Appeals decided on two criminal appeals.

Those opinions came in the cases of Curtis Outlaw v. State, No. 49S02-1006-CR-328; and Steven Marbley-El v. State, No. 71S03-1006-PC-329.

In Outlaw, the justices agreed with the appellate panel in reversing an Indianapolis man’s conviction for a Class A misdemeanor of operating a vehicle while intoxicated “in a manner that endangers a person.” The state had argued that evidence of intoxication should be sufficient to prove “endangerment,” which was the case before the General Assembly revised Indiana Code §9-30-5-2 in 2001. But the appellate court disagreed and rejected that argument and the conviction, which Curtis Outlaw had received a 365-day sentence for.

In Marbley-El, the court granted the transfer petition and summarily affirmed the Court of Appeals on a post-conviction case from St. Joseph Superior. Steven Marbley-El argued that he should have received a jury trial because his sentence was enhanced beyond the four year advisory to six years, based on Blakey v. Washington, 542 U.S. 296, 124 S. Ct. 2531 (2004) and Smylie v. State, 823 N.E.2d 679 (Ind. 2005). But the justices said those rulings don’t apply here because Marbley-El committed the robbery after lawmakers enacted the present “advisory” sentencing scheme.
 

ADVERTISEMENT

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