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. 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.

  2. 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

  3. She must be a great lawyer

  4. Ind. Courts - "Illinois ranks 49th for how court system serves disadvantaged" What about Indiana? A story today from Dave Collins of the AP, here published in the Benton Illinois Evening News, begins: Illinois' court system had the third-worst score in the nation among state judiciaries in serving poor, disabled and other disadvantaged members of the public, according to new rankings. Illinois' "Justice Index" score of 34.5 out of 100, determined by the nonprofit National Center for Access to Justice, is based on how states serve people with disabilities and limited English proficiency, how much free legal help is available and how states help increasing numbers of people representing themselves in court, among other issues. Connecticut led all states with a score of 73.4 and was followed by Hawaii, Minnesota, New York and Delaware, respectively. Local courts in Washington, D.C., had the highest overall score at 80.9. At the bottom was Oklahoma at 23.7, followed by Kentucky, Illinois, South Dakota and Indiana. ILB: That puts Indiana at 46th worse. More from the story: Connecticut, Hawaii, Minnesota, Colorado, Tennessee and Maine had perfect 100 scores in serving people with disabilities, while Indiana, Georgia, Wyoming, Missouri and Idaho had the lowest scores. Those rankings were based on issues such as whether interpretation services are offered free to the deaf and hearing-impaired and whether there are laws or rules allowing service animals in courthouses. The index also reviewed how many civil legal aid lawyers were available to provide free legal help. Washington, D.C., had nearly nine civil legal aid lawyers per 10,000 people in poverty, the highest rate in the country. Texas had the lowest rate, 0.43 legal aid lawyers per 10,000 people in poverty. http://indianalawblog.com/archives/2014/11/ind_courts_illi_1.html

  5. A very thorough opinion by the federal court. The Rooker-Feldman analysis, in particular, helps clear up muddy water as to the entanglement issue. Looks like the Seventh Circuit is willing to let its district courts cruise much closer to the Indiana Supreme Court's shorelines than most thought likely, at least when the ADA on the docket. Some could argue that this case and Praekel, taken together, paint a rather unflattering picture of how the lower courts are being advised as to their duties under the ADA. A read of the DOJ amicus in Praekel seems to demonstrate a less-than-congenial view toward the higher echelons in the bureaucracy.

ADVERTISEMENT