ILNews

Opinions Aug. 21, 2012

August 21, 2012
Keywords
Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

7th Circuit Court of Appeals posted no Indiana opinions at IL deadline.

Indiana Supreme Court and Tax Court posted no opinions at IL deadline.

Indiana Court of Appeals

Jason Fields v. State of Indiana
47A04-1110-CR-577
Criminal. Affirms two convictions of Class B felony dealing in methamphetamine. The trial court’s response to the jury’s mid-deliberation question did not constitute a modification of the jury instructions.

Gary Watts v. State of Indiana (NFP)
49A02-1201-CR-24
Criminal. Affirms conviction of Class D felony theft.

Michael Cochran v. State of Indiana (NFP)
04A03-1201-PC-20
Post conviction. Affirms denial of petition for post-conviction relief.

Freddie Boggess v. State of Indiana (NFP)
75A03-1112-CR-581
Criminal. Affirms convictions of Class B felony dealing in methamphetamine, Class D felony possession of chemical reagents or precursors with intent to manufacture, Class A misdemeanor driving while suspended, and Class B misdemeanor false informing.

Brandon E. Klein v. K.J. (NFP)
79A02-1112-PO-1157
Protective order. Affirms protective order issued against Klein.

Mark Williams v. State of Indiana (NFP)
49A04-1201-CR-4
Criminal. Affirms order Williams serve entire sentence that was suspended at the time of initial sentencing.

Leonard Dewitt v. State of Indiana (NFP)
15A01-1202-PC-63
Post conviction. Affirms denial of petition for post-conviction relief.

Cody Hunt v. State of Indiana (NFP)
35A05-1112-CR-677
Criminal. Affirms conviction of Class D felony battery of a child less than 14 years of age by someone older than 18.

Gregory Vories v. State of Indiana (NFP)
42A04-1201-CR-32
Criminal. Dismisses Vories’ appeal of the denial of his motion for modification of bond.

Reginald Lee v. State of Indiana (NFP)
49A02-1112-CR-1127
Criminal. Affirms convictions of Class B felony robbery and Class D felony auto theft.

Michael Timothy Dean v. State of Indiana (NFP)
73A01-1112-CR-624
Criminal. Affirms conviction of attempted obstruction of justice as a Class D felony.

Christopher Davis v. State of Indiana (NFP)
49A04-1201-CR-19
Criminal. Affirms revocation of probation and execution of previously suspended sentence.

Bruce William Lee v. State of Indiana (NFP)
02A04-1204-CR-173
Criminal. Affirms sentence for Class D felony failure to register as a sex or violent offender.

John Norton, Jr. v. State of Indiana (NFP)
5A04-1202-CR-99
Criminal. Affirms sentence for Class B felony burglary.

Giorgio E. White v. State of Indiana (NFP)
02A03-1201-CR-51
Criminal. Affirms conviction of Class C felony carrying a handgun without a license.

 

ADVERTISEMENT

Post a comment to this story

COMMENTS POLICY
We reserve the right to remove any post that we feel is obscene, profane, vulgar, racist, sexually explicit, abusive, or hateful.
 
You are legally responsible for what you post and your anonymity is not guaranteed.
 
Posts that insult, defame, threaten, harass or abuse other readers or people mentioned in Indiana Lawyer editorial content are also subject to removal. Please respect the privacy of individuals and refrain from posting personal information.
 
No solicitations, spamming or advertisements are allowed. Readers may post links to other informational websites that are relevant to the topic at hand, but please do not link to objectionable material.
 
We may remove messages that are unrelated to the topic, encourage illegal activity, use all capital letters or are unreadable.
 

Messages that are flagged by readers as objectionable will be reviewed and may or may not be removed. Please do not flag a post simply because you disagree with it.

Sponsored by
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. Indiana's seatbelt law is not punishable as a crime. It is an infraction. Apparently some of our Circuit judges have deemed settled law inapplicable if it fails to fit their litmus test of political correctness. Extrapolating to redefine terms of behavior in a violation of immigration law to the entire body of criminal law leaves a smorgasbord of opportunity for judicial mischief.

  2. I wonder if $10 diversions for failure to wear seat belts are considered moral turpitude in federal immigration law like they are under Indiana law? Anyone know?

  3. What a fine article, thank you! I can testify firsthand and by detailed legal reports (at end of this note) as to the dire consequences of rejecting this truth from the fine article above: "The inclusion and expansion of this right [to jury] in Indiana’s Constitution is a clear reflection of our state’s intention to emphasize the importance of every Hoosier’s right to make their case in front of a jury of their peers." Over $20? Every Hoosier? Well then how about when your very vocation is on the line? How about instead of a jury of peers, one faces a bevy of political appointees, mini-czars, who care less about due process of the law than the real czars did? Instead of trial by jury, trial by ideological ordeal run by Orwellian agents? Well that is built into more than a few administrative law committees of the Ind S.Ct., and it is now being weaponized, as is revealed in articles posted at this ezine, to root out post moderns heresies like refusal to stand and pledge allegiance to all things politically correct. My career was burned at the stake for not so saluting, but I think I was just one of the early logs. Due, at least in part, to the removal of the jury from bar admission and bar discipline cases, many more fires will soon be lit. Perhaps one awaits you, dear heretic? Oh, at that Ind. article 12 plank about a remedy at law for every damage done ... ah, well, the founders evidently meant only for those damages done not by the government itself, rabid statists that they were. (Yes, that was sarcasm.) My written reports available here: Denied petition for cert (this time around): http://tinyurl.com/zdmawmw Denied petition for cert (from the 2009 denial and five year banishment): http://tinyurl.com/zcypybh Related, not written by me: Amicus brief: http://tinyurl.com/hvh7qgp

  4. Justice has finally been served. So glad that Dr. Ley can finally sleep peacefully at night knowing the truth has finally come to the surface.

  5. While this right is guaranteed by our Constitution, it has in recent years been hampered by insurance companies, i.e.; the practice of the plaintiff's own insurance company intervening in an action and filing a lien against any proceeds paid to their insured. In essence, causing an additional financial hurdle for a plaintiff to overcome at trial in terms of overall award. In a very real sense an injured party in exercise of their right to trial by jury may be the only party in a cause that would end up with zero compensation.

ADVERTISEMENT