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

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. You can put your photos anywhere you like... When someone steals it they know it doesn't belong to them. And, a man getting a divorce is automatically not a nice guy...? That's ridiculous. Since when is need of money a conflict of interest? That would mean that no one should have a job unless they are already financially solvent without a job... A photographer is also under no obligation to use a watermark (again, people know when a photo doesn't belong to them) or provide contact information. Hey, he didn't make it easy for me to pay him so I'll just take it! Well heck, might as well walk out of the grocery store with a cart full of food because the lines are too long and you don't find that convenient. "Only in Indiana." Oh, now you're passing judgement on an entire state... What state do you live in? I need to characterize everyone in your state as ignorant and opinionated. And the final bit of ignorance; assuming a photo anyone would want is lucky and then how much does your camera have to cost to make it a good photo, in your obviously relevant opinion?

  2. Seventh Circuit Court Judge Diane Wood has stated in “The Rule of Law in Times of Stress” (2003), “that neither laws nor the procedures used to create or implement them should be secret; and . . . the laws must not be arbitrary.” According to the American Bar Association, Wood’s quote drives home this point: The rule of law also requires that people can expect predictable results from the legal system; this is what Judge Wood implies when she says that “the laws must not be arbitrary.” Predictable results mean that people who act in the same way can expect the law to treat them in the same way. If similar actions do not produce similar legal outcomes, people cannot use the law to guide their actions, and a “rule of law” does not exist.

  3. Linda, I sure hope you are not seeking a law license, for such eighteenth century sentiments could result in your denial in some jurisdictions minting attorneys for our tolerant and inclusive profession.

  4. Mazel Tov to the newlyweds. And to those bakers, photographers, printers, clerks, judges and others who will lose careers and social standing for not saluting the New World (Dis)Order, we can all direct our Two Minutes of Hate as Big Brother asks of us. Progress! Onward!

  5. My daughter was taken from my home at the end of June/2014. I said I would sign the safety plan but my husband would not. My husband said he would leave the house so my daughter could stay with me but the case worker said no her mind is made up she is taking my daughter. My daughter went to a friends and then the friend filed a restraining order which she was told by dcs if she did not then they would take my daughter away from her. The restraining order was not in effect until we were to go to court. Eventually it was dropped but for 2 months DCS refused to allow me to have any contact and was using the restraining order as the reason but it was not in effect. This was Dcs violating my rights. Please help me I don't have the money for an attorney. Can anyone take this case Pro Bono?

ADVERTISEMENT