Opinions April 20, 2011

April 20, 2011
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
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
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)
Adoption. Affirms order granting stepfather G.N.’s petition for adoption of R.S.T.

Edward P. Barsh v. State of Indiana (NFP)
Criminal. Affirms revocation of home detention.

LaTrice L. King v. State of Indiana (NFP)
Criminal. Affirms conviction of and sentence for Class B felony criminal confinement.

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

Loren Sallee v. State of Indiana (NFP)
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)
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)
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)
Criminal. Affirms three convictions of Class B felony sexual misconduct with a minor.

Andrew S. Dugger v. State of Indiana (NFP)
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)
Criminal. Affirms sentence following guilty plea to Class B felony dealing in cocaine.

Carl Brown v. State of Indiana (NFP)
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)
Criminal. Affirms conviction of and sentence for Class C felony burglary.

Stroh Landmark, LP, et al. v. Willis Hecht (NFP)
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)
Juvenile. Affirms termination of parental rights.

Indiana Tax Court had posted no opinions at IL deadline.


Sponsored by
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. What about the single mothers trying to protect their children from mentally abusive grandparents who hide who they truly are behind mounds and years of medication and have mentally abused their own children to the point of one being in jail and the other was on drugs. What about trying to keep those children from being subjected to the same abuse they were as a child? I can understand in the instance about the parent losing their right and the grandparent having raised the child previously! But not all circumstances grant this being OKAY! some of us parents are trying to protect our children and yes it is our God given right to make those decisions for our children as adults!! This is not just black and white and I will fight every ounce of this to get denied

  2. Mr Smith the theory of Christian persecution in Indiana has been run by the Indiana Supreme Court and soundly rejected there is no such thing according to those who rule over us. it is a thought crime to think otherwise.

  3. maybe if some of the socia workers would treat the foster parents better, they would continue to fostr.

  4. We have been asked to take in a 2 no old baby because mother is in very unstable situation. We want to do this but will need help with expenses such as medical and formula... Do we have to have custody thru court?

  5. Very troubling. A competent public defender is very much the right of every indigent person in the US or the Fifth amendment becomes meaningless. And considering more and more of us are becoming poorer and poorer under this "system," the need for this are greater than ever.... maybe they should study the Federals and see how they manage their program? And here's to thanking all the PD attorneys out there who do a good job.