ILNews

Opinions April 19, 2013

April 19, 2013
Keywords
Back to TopE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

Indiana Court of Appeals
Razien McCullough v. State of Indiana
49A02-1210-CR-789
Criminal. Affirms two murder convictions and a 115-year aggregate sentence, holding that the state presented sufficient evidence to disprove McCullough’s claim of self-defense and that the sentence was not inappropriate given the nature of the crimes and McCullough’s character.
 
State of Indiana v. Douglas E. Shipman
59A01-1210-CR-471
Criminal. Reverses and remands the trial court’s grant of a motion to suppress evidence seized during the execution of a search warrant at Shipman’s home, holding that the search warrant was supported by probable cause based on a tip from a juvenile burglary suspect who had witnessed large quantities of marijuana in Shipman’s home.

Gregory Garrett v. State of Indiana (NFP)
49A02-1208-CR-666
Criminal. Affirms Garrett’s conviction for Class A misdemeanor battery.

Eddie Hargrow v. State of Indiana (NFP)
48A02-1208-CR-697
Criminal. Affirms sentencing Hargrow to the maximum of 65 years for murder. Ruled the trial court did not abuse its discretion in sentencing Hargrow and that the sentence was not inappropriate in light of the nature of his offense and character.

David Smigielski v. State of Indiana (NFP)
71A05-1209-CR-492
Criminal. Affirms conviction for operating a motor vehicle while intoxicated, a Class C misdemeanor, and for operating a motor vehicle while intoxicated after having been convicted of operating a motor vehicle while intoxicated, a Class D felony.

Michael Warren v. State of Indiana (NFP)

18A02-1210-CR-870
Criminal. Dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. Ruled the trial court erred when it granted Warren leave to file a belated notice of appeal of the probation revocation order.

Philip M. Reed v. State of Indiana (NFP)
32A05-1208-CR-426
Criminal. Affirms conviction of Class C felony operating a motor vehicle after driving privileges are forfeited for life. Found trial counsel provided effective assistance.

Darius Washington v. Indiana Department of Correction (NFP)
52A02-1204-SC-796
Small Claim. Affirms judgment for the Indiana Department of Correction after Washington filed a notice of claim regarding the loss of her property. Found the trial court did not err by entering judgment in favor of the DOC or by denying Washington’s motion to transport.

Kenneth Schaefer v. State of Indiana (NFP)
49A02-1206-CR-468
Criminal. Affirms convictions of murder and Class C felony battery. Found the trial court did not abuse its discretion by refusing to give Schaefer’s tendered instruction to the jury regarding voluntary manslaughter and sudden heat. Also ruled Schaefer’s sentence to an aggregate of 60 years is not inappropriate in light of the nature of the offenses and his character.

The Indiana Supreme Court and Tax Court issued no opinions prior to IL deadline. The 7th Circuit Court of Appeals issued no Indiana decisions prior to IL deadline.
 

ADVERTISEMENT

Sponsored by
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. CCHP's real accomplishment is the 2015 law signed by Gov Pence that basically outlaws any annexation that is forced where a 65% majority of landowners in the affected area disagree. Regardless of whether HP wins or loses, the citizens of Indiana will not have another fiasco like this. The law Gov Pence signed is a direct result of this malgovernance.

  2. I gave tempparry guardship to a friend of my granddaughter in 2012. I went to prison. I had custody. My daughter went to prison to. We are out. My daughter gave me custody but can get her back. She was not order to give me custody . but now we want granddaughter back from friend. She's 14 now. What rights do we have

  3. This sure is not what most who value good governance consider the Rule of Law to entail: "In a letter dated March 2, which Brizzi forwarded to IBJ, the commission dismissed the grievance “on grounds that there is not reasonable cause to believe that you are guilty of misconduct.”" Yet two month later reasonable cause does exist? (Or is the commission forging ahead, the need for reasonable belief be damned? -- A seeming violation of the Rules of Profession Ethics on the part of the commission) Could the rule of law theory cause one to believe that an explanation is in order? Could it be that Hoosier attorneys live under Imperial Law (which is also a t-word that rhymes with infamy) in which the Platonic guardians can do no wrong and never owe the plebeian class any explanation for their powerful actions. (Might makes it right?) Could this be a case of politics directing the commission, as celebrated IU Mauer Professor (the late) Patrick Baude warned was happening 20 years ago in his controversial (whisteblowing) ethics lecture on a quite similar topic: http://www.repository.law.indiana.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1498&context=ilj

  4. I have a case presently pending cert review before the SCOTUS that reveals just how Indiana regulates the bar. I have been denied licensure for life for holding the wrong views and questioning the grand inquisitors as to their duties as to state and federal constitutional due process. True story: https://www.scribd.com/doc/299040839/2016Petitionforcert-to-SCOTUS Shorter, Amici brief serving to frame issue as misuse of govt licensure: https://www.scribd.com/doc/312841269/Thomas-More-Society-Amicus-Brown-v-Ind-Bd-of-Law-Examiners

  5. Here's an idea...how about we MORE heavily regulate the law schools to reduce the surplus of graduates, driving starting salaries up for those new grads, so that we can all pay our insane amount of student loans off in a reasonable amount of time and then be able to afford to do pro bono & low-fee work? I've got friends in other industries, radiology for example, and their schools accept a very limited number of students so there will never be a glut of new grads and everyone's pay stays high. For example, my radiologist friend's school accepted just six new students per year.

ADVERTISEMENT