ILNews

Opinions April 23, 2014

April 23, 2014
Keywords
Back to TopE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

Indiana Court of Appeals
Matthew P. Wilhoite v. State of Indiana
34A04-1303-CR-138
Criminal. Affirms conviction of Class B felony “conspiracy to commit attempted armed robbery.” Wilhoite argued his conviction is invalid because a person may not be convicted of “conspiring to attempt” any crime. Although the state referenced a non-existent crime when it listed “conspiracy to commit attempted robbery” on the charging information as the crime committed, Wilhoite has not demonstrated fundamental error.  

Charla P. Richard v. State of Indiana
50A03-1307-CR-297
Criminal. Affirms conviction of Class D felony possession of methamphetamine. Richard’s arrest and the subsequent search of the vehicle she was riding in did not violate the Fourth Amendment or Article I, Section 11 of the Indiana Constitution.

Co-Alliance, LLP v. Monticello Farm Service, Inc.
91A05-1312-PL-607
Civil plenary. Affirms the trial court’s determination that the subordination agreement between Monticello Farm Service and First Farmers Bank & Trust gave Monticello first claim on the remaining $181,000 in 2010 crop proceeds. Concludes Indiana should follow the majority rule on agreements to modify the priority of liens securing interests in a borrower’s assets. Recognizing such agreements is consistent with the Uniform Commercial Code and Indiana common law.

In re the Marriage of: Jose de Jesus Carrillo Perez and Maria Guadalupe Carrillo Perez, Maria Guadalupe Vidrios Zepeda f/k/a Maria Guadalupe Carrillo Perez v. Jose de Jesus Carrillo Perez
02A05-1305-DR-256
Domestic relation. Affirms awarding Maria Guadalupe Carrillo Perez the equivalent of 2.5 percent of ex-husband Jose de Jesus Carrillo Perez’s lottery winnings. Because the language of her ex-husband’s admission did not preclude the trial court from awarding Maria only 2.5 percent of his lottery proceeds and Maria fails to overcome the strong presumption that the trial court considered and complied with the applicable statute, the trial court did not abuse its discretion.

Dustin E. McCowan v. State of Indiana (NFP)
64A03-1305-CR-189
Criminal. Affirms felony murder conviction.

Timothy Robertson v. State of Indiana (NFP)
27A02-1307-PC-646
Post conviction. Affirms denial of petition for post-conviction relief.

Vincent Smith v. State of Indiana (NFP)
49A04-1309-CR-443
Criminal. Affirms conviction of Class D felony criminal recklessness.

Nicole Snodgrass v. State of Indiana (NFP)
83A01-1308-CR-370
Criminal. Affirms sentence for two counts of Class B felony dealing in a Schedule II controlled substance and three counts of Class D felony theft.

Dalvinder Singh v. State of Indiana (NFP)
49A05-1306-CR-313
Criminal. Affirms conviction of Class D felony sexual battery.

Nestor Canenguez-Ramirez v. State of Indiana (NFP)
20A04-1307-PC-371
Post conviction. Affirms denial of petition for post-conviction relief.

Raymond Cantu v. State of Indiana (NFP)
20A03-1301-CR-8
Criminal. Affirms convictions of Class A felony child molesting, Class C felony child molesting and Class A felony attempted child molesting.

Joseph Pennington v. State of Indiana (NFP)
05A02-1309-CR-823
Criminal. Affirms sentence for Class B felony sexual misconduct with a minor.

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