ILNews

Opinions April 28, 2014

April 28, 2014
Keywords
Back to TopE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

Indiana Court of Appeals
John M. Weidman v. State of Indiana
03A01-1306-CR-255
Criminal. Affirms 14-year sentence following guilty pleas in two separate causes. Weidman specifically agreed in his plea agreement that he was not entitled to credit for the time he was on electronic monitoring as a condition of his release on bond. Accordingly, he may not now claim that he was entitled to credit for the time he was on electronic monitoring.

Sammie L. Booker-El v. State of Indiana (NFP)
48A02-1304-CR-366
Criminal. Affirms denial of motion for relief from judgment and motion to correct error.

Benjamin E. Freed v. State of Indiana (NFP)
63A04-1309-CR-458
Criminal. Affirms convictions and 45-year sentence for Class A felony attempted child molesting and Class C felony child molesting.

Richard L. Jones v. State of Indiana (NFP)
49A05-1308-CR-423
Criminal. Affirms conviction of Class B felony burglary.  

Trent D. Pope v. State of Indiana (NFP)

89A05-1307-CR-366
Criminal. Affirms conviction of Class B felony robbery and adjudication as a habitual offender.

Blake J. Drapeau v. State of Indiana (NFP)
82A01-1310-CR-466
Criminal. Affirms conviction of Class D felony residential entry.

John W. Dozier v. State of Indiana (NFP)
34A05-1311-CR-539
Criminal. Affirms revocation of probation and order Dozier serve his previously suspended sentence.

In the Matter of the Termination of the Parent-Child Relationship of: A.C. (Minor Child), and A.C.C. (Father) v. The Indiana Department of Child Services (NFP)
82A04-1309-JT-496
Juvenile. Affirms termination of parental rights.  http://media.ibj.com/Lawyer/websites/opinions/index.php?pdf=2014/april/04281406jsk.pdf

In the Matter of the Termination of the Parent-Child Relationship of D.S. and G.S., minor children, and A.C., Mother, A.C. v. Indiana Department of Child Services (NFP)
49A02-1309-JT-803
Juvenile. Affirms order terminating parental rights.

Carl R. Evanoff v. State of Indiana (NFP)
17A04-1309-CR-445
Criminal. Affirms 15-year sentence following guilty plea to Class B felony conspiracy to manufacture methamphetamine.

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. I need an experienced attorney to handle a breach of contract matter. Kindly respond for more details. Graham Young

  2. I thought the slurs were the least grave aspects of her misconduct, since they had nothing to do with her being on the bench. Why then do I suspect they were the focus? I find this a troubling trend. At least she was allowed to keep her law license.

  3. Section 6 of Article I of the Indiana Constitution is pretty clear and unequivocal: "Section 6. No money shall be drawn from the treasury for the benefit of any religious or theological institution."

  4. Video pen? Nice work, "JW"! Let this be a lesson and a caution to all disgruntled ex-spouses (or soon-to-be ex-spouses) . . . you may think that altercation is going to get you some satisfaction . . . it will not.

  5. First comment on this thread is a fitting final comment on this thread, as that the MCBA never answered Duncan's fine question, and now even Eric Holder agrees that the MCBA was in material error as to the facts: "I don't get it" from Duncan December 1, 2014 5:10 PM "The Grand Jury met for 25 days and heard 70 hours of testimony according to this article and they made a decision that no crime occurred. On what basis does the MCBA conclude that their decision was "unjust"? What special knowledge or evidence does the MCBA have that the Grand Jury hearing this matter was unaware of? The system that we as lawyers are sworn to uphold made a decision that there was insufficient proof that officer committed a crime. How can any of us say we know better what was right than the jury that actually heard all of the the evidence in this case."

ADVERTISEMENT