ILNews

Opinions April 22, 2014

April 22, 2014
Keywords
Back to TopE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

Indiana Court of Appeals
Shelly Bailey v. Lance Bailey
25A04-1309-DR-452
Domestic relation. Reverses trial court’s modification of physical custody of the two children. Finds the Parallel Parenting Time Order did not enable the court to modify the children’s custody to joint custody especially since neither parent petitioned for a change in custody. Judge John Baker dissented, writing that, as instructed by the Parallel Parenting Time Order, the trial court was trying to act in the best interest of the children and to prevent any further destructive behavior by the parents.

In the Matter of the Adoption of B.C.H., a Minor
41A04-1308-AD-388
Adoption. Affirms trial court orders denying grandparents’ motion for relief from judgment and motion to correct error that aimed to set aside stepfather’s adoption of 6-year-old B.C.H. Despite having provided care almost exclusively during the child’s first two years, grandparents are not parties required to receive notice and consent to the adoption. Grandparents also had actual knowledge of the proceedings and did not object or attempt to intervene. In a concurring opinion, Judge Paul Mathias would have required stepfather to get grandparents’ consent, but found in this case grandparents cannot pursue a late challenge to the adoption.

Randy E. Black v. State of Indiana
01A04-1310-CR-526
Criminal. Affirms conviction of Class C felony forgery, holding that the trial court did not err by not ruling on Black’s pro se request for an early trial and that Black did not receive ineffective assistance of counsel. Black, who was serving a sentence in the Department of Correction on unrelated charges, was appointed a public defender at an initial hearing, at which time he told the court he wanted to “file for fast and speedy trial too.” Because a defender had been appointed, that decision was a matter of strategy allocated to defense counsel, and the record does not establish counsel’s assistance fell below an objective standard of reasonableness.

State of Indiana, Indiana Bureau of Motor Vehicles, and Kent Schroder as Commissioner of Motor Vehicles v. Matthew E. Patty (NFP)
09A02-1311-MI-885
Miscellaneous. Reverses order granting Patty’s petition for issuance of a probationary driver’s license. Finds the Indiana Bureau of Motor Vehicles did notify Patty of his habitual traffic violator status and suspension. Also concludes Patty is ineligible for a probationary license because his license was already suspended for a previous judgment when he was arrested for operating while intoxicated in Hendricks County.

Desmond E. Lewis v. State of Indiana (NFP)
92A05-1306-CR-284
Criminal. Affirms conviction of operating a vehicle while intoxicated in a manner that endangers a person, a Class A misdemeanor.

Corey Bates v. State of Indiana (NFP)
49A04-1309-CR-435
Criminal. Affirms conviction for Class C felony forgery.

Conway Jefferson v. State of Indiana (NFP)
49A02-1309-PC-748
Post conviction. Affirms denial of petition for post-conviction relief.

The Indiana Supreme Court and the Indiana Tax Court posted no opinions by IL deadline. The 7th Circuit Court of Appeals posted no Indiana opinions by 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