ILNews

Opinions April 20, 2011

April 20, 2011
Keywords
Back to TopE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

Indiana Supreme Court had posted no opinions IL deadline.

Indiana Court of Appeals
Ricky E. Graham v. State of Indiana
22A01-1008-PC-392
Post conviction. Grants rehearing to clarify comments made regarding the creation and preservation of evidentiary records in post-conviction relief proceedings and affirms original opinion in all respects.

Roland Ball v. State of Indiana
06A01-1007-CR-426
Criminal. Reverses conviction of Class D felony sexual battery because there is insufficient evidence of sexual battery, but sufficient evidence of the lesser-included offense of battery. The state failed to prove the element of mental disability or deficiency beyond a reasonable doubt and being asleep does not constitute being mentally disabled or deficient under the statute. Remands to enter judgment for battery as a Class B misdemeanor.

The Adoption of R.S.T.; J.T. v. G.N. (NFP)
71A03-1008-AD-475
Adoption. Affirms order granting stepfather G.N.’s petition for adoption of R.S.T.

Edward P. Barsh v. State of Indiana (NFP)
48A02-1009-CR-1047
Criminal. Affirms revocation of home detention.

LaTrice L. King v. State of Indiana (NFP)
71A05-1007-CR-560
Criminal. Affirms conviction of and sentence for Class B felony criminal confinement.

James Lee-Vaughn White, II v. State of Indiana (NFP)
71A04-1009-CR-586
Criminal. Affirms conviction of Class D felony theft.

Loren Sallee v. State of Indiana (NFP)
31A01-1008-CR-399
Criminal. Affirms convictions of Class A misdemeanor domestic battery, Class D felony domestic battery, and Class A misdemeanor interference with reporting of a crime.

Luis Briones v. State of Indiana (NFP)
71A03-1009-CR-450
Criminal. Affirms convictions of murder, Class C felony criminal recklessness and Class A misdemeanor carrying a handgun without a license.

L.R. v. Review Board (NFP)
93A02-1009-EX-1010
Civil. Affirms decision of the review board concluding that L.R. is disqualified from receiving unemployment insurance benefits because he was discharged for just cause.

Jason Morales v. State of Indiana (NFP)
82A04-1005-CR-311
Criminal. Affirms three convictions of Class B felony sexual misconduct with a minor.

Andrew S. Dugger v. State of Indiana (NFP)
48A05-1008-CR-562
Criminal. Affirms convictions of and sentence for Class B felony possession of a dangerous device or material by a prisoner and Class C felony battery.

Napoleon Camarillo v. State of Indiana (NFP)
46A03-1009-CR-553
Criminal. Affirms sentence following guilty plea to Class B felony dealing in cocaine.

Carl Brown v. State of Indiana (NFP)
49A04-1007-CR-448
Criminal. Affirms convictions of Class B felony robbery, Class C felony intimidation, and Class B felony possession of a firearm by a serious violent felon.

Woody E. Sinclair v. State of Indiana (NFP)
02A03-1008-CR-443
Criminal. Affirms conviction of and sentence for Class C felony burglary.

Stroh Landmark, LP, et al. v. Willis Hecht (NFP)
17A03-1011-PL-631
Civil plenary. Reverses denial of Indiana Trial Rule 60(B) motion to set aside default judgment on a real estate transaction issue. Remands for further proceedings.

Term. of Parent-Child Rel. of C.S., et al; K.L. v. I.D.C.S. (NFP)
57A03-1009-JT-464
Juvenile. Affirms termination of parental rights.

Indiana Tax Court had posted no opinions at IL deadline.
 

ADVERTISEMENT

Sponsored by
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. The practitioners and judges who hail E-filing as the Saviour of the West need to contain their respective excitements. E-filing is federal court requires the practitioner to cram his motion practice into pigeonholes created by IT people. Compound motions or those seeking alternative relief are effectively barred, unless the practitioner wants to receive a tart note from some functionary admonishing about the "problem". E-filing is just another method by which courts and judges transfer their burden to practitioners, who are the really the only powerless components of the system. Of COURSE it is easier for the court to require all of its imput to conform to certain formats, but this imposition does NOT improve the quality of the practice of law and does NOT improve the ability of the practitioner to advocate for his client or to fashion pleadings that exactly conform to his client's best interests. And we should be very wary of the disingenuous pablum about the costs. The courts will find a way to stick it to the practitioner. Lake County is a VERY good example of this rapaciousness. Any one who does not believe this is invited to review the various special fees that system imposes upon practitioners- as practitioners- and upon each case ON TOP of the court costs normal in every case manually filed. Jurisprudence according to Aldous Huxley.

  2. Any attorneys who practice in federal court should be able to say the same as I can ... efiling is great. I have been doing it in fed court since it started way back. Pacer has its drawbacks, but the ability to hit an e-docket and pull up anything and everything onscreen is a huge plus for a litigator, eps the sole practitioner, who lacks a filing clerk and the paralegal support of large firms. Were I an Indiana attorney I would welcome this great step forward.

  3. Can we get full disclosure on lobbyist's payments to legislatures such as Mr Buck? AS long as there are idiots that are disrespectful of neighbors and intent on shooting fireworks every night, some kind of regulations are needed.

  4. I am the mother of the child in this case. My silence on the matter was due to the fact that I filed, both in Illinois and Indiana, child support cases. I even filed supporting documentation with the Indiana family law court. Not sure whether this information was provided to the court of appeals or not. Wish the case was done before moving to Indiana, because no matter what, there is NO WAY the state of Illinois would have allowed an appeal on a child support case!

  5. "No one is safe when the Legislature is in session."

ADVERTISEMENT