ILNews

Opinions April 23, 2013

April 23, 2013
Keywords
Back to TopE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

Indiana Court of Appeals
Kenyatta Erkins and Ugbe Ojile v. State of Indiana
58A01-1205-CR-215
Criminal. Affirms convictions of Class A felony conspiracy to commit robbery resulting in serious bodily injury. Rejected all the issues Erkins and Ojile raised on appeal. Found the trial court did not err in permitting the amendment to the charging information; the evidence was sufficient to show the pair intended and agreed to commit robbery that would result in serious bodily injury; the trial court did not abuse its discretion in admitting evidence gathered after Erkins and Ojile left the casino; any error in admitted interpretations of the pair’s phone conversation was harmless; and the prosecutor did not commit misconduct nor cause a fundamental error.

Paul Sparks v. State of Indiana
49A02-1207-CR-593
Criminal. Granted the state’s petition for a rehearing of the COA’s decision in Sparks v. State, 983 N.E.2d 221 (Ind. Ct. App. 2013). Ruled the state cannot rely solely on Sparks’ original admission of a probation violation to revoke his probation.

Joanna S. Robinson v. State of Indiana
20A04-1209-CR-561
Criminal. Reversed Robinson’s convictions for operating a vehicle with a suspended license, a Class A misdemeanor; possession of marijuana, a Class A misdemeanor; and operating a vehicle while intoxicated, a Class A misdemeanor. Ruled that Robinson driving her car over the fog line twice was insufficient to justify a traffic stop.

Term. of the Parent-Child Rel. of J.L.W. (Minor Child) and S.R.W. (Mother), J.C.H. (Alleged Father), and Alleged Unknown Father v. The Indiana Dept. of Child Services (NFP)
02A03-1207-JT-307
Termination of parental rights. Affirmed involuntary termination of mother’s parental rights. Found the trial court did not err in concluding that there is a reasonable possibility that the conditions that resulted in the minor’s placement outside the home will not be remedied.

Ronald A. Bohannon v. State of Indiana (NFP)
28A04-1212-CR-656
Criminal. Affirms sentence of eight years for a reckless homicide conviction, which was enhanced by five years as a result of Bohannon’s habitual offender status; seven years for handgun convictions, to be served consecutively to the enhanced sentence; and two years for a conviction of receiving stolen property, to be served concurrently with the other sentences.

Kenyatta Erkins and Ugbe Ojile v. State of Indiana
58A01-1205-CR-215
Criminal. Affirms convictions of Class A felony conspiracy to commit robbery resulting in serious bodily injury. Rejected all the issues Erkins and Ojile raised on appeal. Found the trial court did not err in permitting the amendment to the charging information; the evidence was sufficient to show the pair intended and agreed to commit robbery that would result in serious bodily injury; the trial court did not abuse its discretion in admitting evidence gathered after Erkins and Ojile left the casino; any error in admitted interpretations of the pair’s phone conversation was harmless; and the prosecutor did not commit misconduct nor cause a fundamental error.

In Re the Paternity of A.H., A.E., A.M., A.I., A.N.; A.G. v. A.H. (NFP)
49A02-1208-JP-668
Paternity. Affirms trial court calculation of father’s weekly child support obligation since 2007. Found the trial court did not abuse its discretion when it made the calculations.

Sungold Holdings, Inc., Midwest Auto Body, and Robert H. Gentry, III v. Donald Blair (NFP)
18A02-1207-MI-612
Miscellaneous. Affirms trial court’s decision to issue tax deeds to Blair for three properties sold at a tax sale. Found the trial court did not err in holding that Sungold Holdings, et. al., failed to raise a viable objection to the sale.

D.S. v. State of Indiana (NFP)
49A04-1210-JV-522
Juvenile. Affirms juvenile court’s adjudication finding that D.S. is a delinquent child for committing what would be the crime of receiving stolen property, a Class D felony, is committed by an adult. Found the juvenile court did not abuse its discretion by permitting the state to reopen its case in chief. Also ruled the juvenile court did not commit a reversible error by denying D.S.’s motion for involuntary dismissal under Indiana Trial Rule 41(B).

Antwan Parks v. State of Indiana (NFP)
79A02-1208-CR-672
Criminal. Affirms Parks’s conviction for Class C felony battery. Concluded the evidence was sufficient to establish bodily injury.

 

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