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. Such things are no more elections than those in the late, unlamented Soviet Union.

  2. 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!!!

  3. 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?

  4. 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?

  5. 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.

ADVERTISEMENT