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. It appears the police and prosecutors are allowed to change the rules halfway through the game to suit themselves. I am surprised that the congress has not yet eliminated the right to a trial in cases involving any type of forensic evidence. That would suit their foolish law and order police state views. I say we eliminate the statute of limitations for crimes committed by members of congress and other government employees. Of course they would never do that. They are all corrupt cowards!!!

  2. Poor Judge Brown probably thought that by slavishly serving the godz of the age her violations of 18th century concepts like due process and the rule of law would be overlooked. Mayhaps she was merely a Judge ahead of her time?

  3. in a lawyer discipline case Judge Brown, now removed, was presiding over a hearing about a lawyer accused of the supposedly heinous ethical violation of saying the words "Illegal immigrant." (IN re Barker) http://www.in.gov/judiciary/files/order-discipline-2013-55S00-1008-DI-429.pdf .... I wonder if when we compare the egregious violations of due process by Judge Brown, to her chiding of another lawyer for politically incorrectness, if there are any conclusions to be drawn about what kind of person, what kind of judge, what kind of apparatchik, is busy implementing the agenda of political correctness and making off-limits legit advocacy about an adverse party in a suit whose illegal alien status is relevant? I am just asking the question, the reader can make own conclsuion. Oh wait-- did I use the wrong adjective-- let me rephrase that, um undocumented alien?

  4. of course the bigger questions of whether or not the people want to pay for ANY bussing is off limits, due to the Supreme Court protecting the people from DEMOCRACY. Several decades hence from desegregation and bussing plans and we STILL need to be taking all this taxpayer money to combat mostly-imagined "discrimination" in the most obviously failed social program of the postwar period.

  5. 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?

ADVERTISEMENT