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
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. On a related note, I offered the ICLU my cases against the BLE repeatedly, and sought their amici aid repeatedly as well. Crickets. Usually not even a response. I am guessing they do not do allegations of anti-Christian bias? No matter how glaring? I have posted on other links the amicus brief that did get filed (search this ezine, e.g., Kansas attorney), read the Thomas More Society brief to note what the ACLU ran from like vampires from garlic. An Examiner pledged to advance diversity and inclusion came right out on the record and demanded that I choose Man's law or God's law. I wonder, had I been asked to swear off Allah ... what result then, ICLU? Had I been found of bad character and fitness for advocating sexual deviance, what result then ICLU? Had I been lifetime banned for posting left of center statements denigrating the US Constitution, what result ICLU? Hey, we all know don't we? Rather Biased.

  2. It was mentioned in the article that there have been numerous CLE events to train attorneys on e-filing. I would like someone to provide a list of those events, because I have not seen any such events in east central Indiana, and since Hamilton County is one of the counties where e-filing is mandatory, one would expect some instruction in this area. Come on, people, give some instruction, not just applause!

  3. This law is troubling in two respects: First, why wasn't the law reviewed "with the intention of getting all the facts surrounding the legislation and its actual impact on the marketplace" BEFORE it was passed and signed? Seems a bit backwards to me (even acknowledging that this is the Indiana state legislature we're talking about. Second, what is it with the laws in this state that seem to create artificial monopolies in various industries? Besides this one, the other law that comes to mind is the legislation that governed the granting of licenses to firms that wanted to set up craft distilleries. The licensing was limited to only those entities that were already in the craft beer brewing business. Republicans in this state talk a big game when it comes to being "business friendly". They're friendly alright . . . to certain businesses.

  4. Gretchen, Asia, Roberto, Tonia, Shannon, Cheri, Nicholas, Sondra, Carey, Laura ... my heart breaks for you, reaching out in a forum in which you are ignored by a professional suffering through both compassion fatigue and the love of filthy lucre. Most if not all of you seek a warm blooded Hoosier attorney unafraid to take on the government and plead that government officials have acted unconstitutionally to try to save a family and/or rescue children in need and/or press individual rights against the Leviathan state. I know an attorney from Kansas who has taken such cases across the country, arguing before half of the federal courts of appeal and presenting cases to the US S.Ct. numerous times seeking cert. Unfortunately, due to his zeal for the constitutional rights of peasants and willingness to confront powerful government bureaucrats seemingly violating the same ... he was denied character and fitness certification to join the Indiana bar, even after he was cleared to sit for, and passed, both the bar exam and ethics exam. And was even admitted to the Indiana federal bar! NOW KNOW THIS .... you will face headwinds and difficulties in locating a zealously motivated Hoosier attorney to face off against powerful government agents who violate the constitution, for those who do so tend to end up as marginalized as Paul Odgen, who was driven from the profession. So beware, many are mere expensive lapdogs, the kind of breed who will gladly take a large retainer, but then fail to press against the status quo and powers that be when told to heel to. It is a common belief among some in Indiana that those attorneys who truly fight the power and rigorously confront corruption often end up, actually or metaphorically, in real life or at least as to their careers, as dead as the late, great Gary Welch. All of that said, I wish you the very best in finding a Hoosier attorney with a fighting spirit to press your rights as far as you can, for you do have rights against government actors, no matter what said actors may tell you otherwise. Attorneys outside the elitist camp are often better fighters that those owing the powers that be for their salaries, corner offices and end of year bonuses. So do not be afraid to retain a green horn or unconnected lawyer, many of them are fine men and woman who are yet untainted by the "unique" Hoosier system.

  5. I am not the John below. He is a journalist and talk show host who knows me through my years working in Kansas government. I did no ask John to post the note below ...

ADVERTISEMENT