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

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. First comment on this thread is a fitting final comment on this thread, as that the MCBA never answered Duncan's fine question, and now even Eric Holder agrees that the MCBA was in material error as to the facts: "I don't get it" from Duncan December 1, 2014 5:10 PM "The Grand Jury met for 25 days and heard 70 hours of testimony according to this article and they made a decision that no crime occurred. On what basis does the MCBA conclude that their decision was "unjust"? What special knowledge or evidence does the MCBA have that the Grand Jury hearing this matter was unaware of? The system that we as lawyers are sworn to uphold made a decision that there was insufficient proof that officer committed a crime. How can any of us say we know better what was right than the jury that actually heard all of the the evidence in this case."

  2. wow is this a bunch of bs! i know the facts!

  3. MCBA .... time for a new release about your entire membership (or is it just the alter ego) being "saddened and disappointed" in the failure to lynch a police officer protecting himself in the line of duty. But this time against Eric Holder and the Federal Bureau of Investigation: "WASHINGTON — Justice Department lawyers will recommend that no civil rights charges be brought against the police officer who fatally shot an unarmed teenager in Ferguson, Mo., after an F.B.I. investigation found no evidence to support charges, law enforcement officials said Wednesday." http://www.nytimes.com/2015/01/22/us/justice-department-ferguson-civil-rights-darren-wilson.html?ref=us&_r=0

  4. Dr wail asfour lives 3 hours from the hospital,where if he gets an emergency at least he needs three hours,while even if he is on call he should be in a location where it gives him max 10 minutes to be beside the patient,they get paid double on their on call days ,where look how they handle it,so if the death of the patient occurs on weekend and these doctors still repeat same pattern such issue should be raised,they should be closer to the patient.on other hand if all the death occured on the absence of the Dr and the nurses handle it,the nurses should get trained how to function appearntly they not that good,if the Dr lives 3 hours far from the hospital on his call days he should sleep in the hospital

  5. It's a capital offense...one for you Latin scholars..

ADVERTISEMENT