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. Family court judges never fail to surprise me with their irrational thinking. First of all any man who abuses his wife is not fit to be a parent. A man who can't control his anger should not be allowed around his child unsupervised period. Just because he's never been convicted of abusing his child doesn't mean he won't and maybe he hasn't but a man that has such poor judgement and control is not fit to parent without oversight - only a moron would think otherwise. Secondly, why should the mother have to pay? He's the one who made the poor decisions to abuse and he should be the one to pay the price - monetarily and otherwise. Yes it's sad that the little girl may be deprived of her father, but really what kind of father is he - the one that abuses her mother the one that can't even step up and do what's necessary on his own instead the abused mother is to pay for him???? What is this Judge thinking? Another example of how this world rewards bad behavior and punishes those who do right. Way to go Judge - NOT.

  2. Right on. Legalize it. We can take billions away from the drug cartels and help reduce violence in central America and more unwanted illegal immigration all in one fell swoop. cut taxes on the savings from needless incarcerations. On and stop eroding our fourth amendment freedom or whatever's left of it.

  3. "...a switch from crop production to hog production "does not constitute a significant change."??? REALLY?!?! Any judge that cannot see a significant difference between a plant and an animal needs to find another line of work.

  4. Why do so many lawyers get away with lying in court, Jamie Yoak?

  5. Future generations will be amazed that we prosecuted people for possessing a harmless plant. The New York Times came out in favor of legalization in Saturday's edition of the newspaper.

ADVERTISEMENT