ILNews

Opinions Aug. 11, 2014

August 11, 2014
Keywords
Back to TopE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

Indiana Court of Appeals
Dwight Hayes v. State of Indiana
49A04-1312-CR-619
Criminal. Affirms conviction for Class A misdemeanor pointing a firearm. Finds the trial court properly rejected Hayes’ proposed jury instructions based on Indiana’s stand-your-ground law because there was no evidence that his property was being attacked when he pointed two handguns at a woman trying to serve him with legal documents.

L.C. Westervelt, Margaret Fox, Joe Dan Trigg, Attorney-in-Fact and Trustee for Lillian Guild, Marilyn Guild, Ramah Lee Jones, Janice Trigg, et al. v. George Woodcock III, d/b/a West Drilling Company
65A01-1311-PL-501
Civil plenary. Reverses summary judgment against Carolyn Sue Stinson and remands to the trial court to enter summary judgment for Stinson. The Posey Circuit Court determined Stinson’s ownership in a mineral interest had lapsed. However, the Court of Appeals found the judgment for Woodcock was in error because Stinson had paid taxes which prevented the lapse of her mineral interest. Judge Mark Bailey concurred in result.  

Colton Milam v. State of Indiana
49A02-1312-CR-998
Criminal. Reverses conviction of Class B misdemeanor public intoxication, finding there is insufficient evidence to sustain the conviction.

Marcus Richardson v. Wendy Knight
48A04-1312-MI-625
Miscellaneous. Affirms trial court’s transfer of Marcus Richardson’s petition for writ of habeas corpus from Madison Circuit Court to the sentencing Marion Superior Court. Because the petition is an attack on the validity of Richardson’s conviction of murder and 60-year sentence, it is to be treated as a petition for post-conviction relief and must be transferred to the sentencing court.

Micah T. Lminggio v. State of Indiana (NFP)
79A04-1312-CR-635
Criminal. Affirms convictions of Class A felony dealing in a narcotic drug and two counts of Class B felony possession of a firearm by a serious violent felon.

Kevin L. Curry v. State of Indiana (NFP)
20A03-1312-PC-513
Post conviction. Affirms denial of post-conviction relief.

In the Matter of the Commitment of E.L., E.L. v. Indiana University Health Bloomington Hospital and Carey Mayer, M.D. (NFP)
53A01-1402-MH-66
Mental health. Affirms involuntary mental health commitment, order for forced medication and order for transport to Richmond State Hospital.

Mike Meyer, Trustee v. Susan Orth, Allen County Treasurer, and Tera K. Klutz, Allen County Auditor, LRB Holdings, Inc. v. Mark Linker, Deborah Linker, America's Wholesale Lender, et al. (NFP)
02A03-1310-MI-397
Miscellaneous. Affirms denial of motion to vacate judgment.

James Mantz v. State of Indiana (NFP)
49A05-1304-CR-200
Criminal. Dismisses motion for immediate discharge from unlawful imprisonment.  

Robert D. Bowen v. State of Indiana (NFP)
08A02-1312-CR-1078
Criminal. Affirms resentencing on remand from Indiana Supreme Court.

Lisa Ritchie v. State of Indiana (NFP)
20A04-1306-CR-286
Criminal. Affirms denial of motion to correct erroneous sentence.

Jimmie T. Bowen v. State of Indiana (NFP)
45A04-1312-CR-631
Criminal. Affirms three-year sentence of Class D felony theft.

Bulent Colak v. State of Indiana (NFP)
82A01-1312-CR-557
Criminal. Affirms conviction of Class D felony battery.

John Anthony v. State of Indiana (NFP)
49A02-1312-CR-1033
Criminal. Affirms conviction of Class A misdemeanor criminal mischief.

Christopher Woodburn v. State of Indiana (NFP)
71A05-1312-CR-638
Criminal. Affirms conviction of Class D felony domestic battery.

In the Matter of the Termination of the Parent-Child Relationship of: T.D. and M.D. (minor children); A.D. (Father) v. The Indiana Department of Child Services (NFP)
82A01-1308-JT-344
Juvenile. Affirms termination of parental rights.

Chanse T. Starr v. State of Indiana (NFP)
90A02-1306-CR-499
Criminal. Affirms eight-year sentence for conviction of Class C felony burglary served consecutively to a previous conviction of Class C felony corrupt business influence.
 
Gerardo Nino Romero v. State of Indiana (NFP)
02A03-1208-PC-379
Post conviction. Affirms denial of post-conviction relief.
 
Donald Woods v. State of Indiana (NFP)
49A02-1310-PC-858
Post conviction. Affirms denial of post-conviction relief.
 
Christopher Lawson v. State of Indiana (NFP)
79A02-1307-CR-664
Criminal. Affirms aggregate 20-year sentence for convictions of Class B felony possession of a narcotic drug within 1,000 feet of a family housing complex, two counts of Class D felony neglect of a dependent and Class A misdemeanor possession of paraphernalia.

Robert Hoffman v. State of Indiana (NFP)
71A03-1401-CR-41
Criminal. Affirms in part, reverses in part and remands. Affirms conviction of Class D felony strangulation, but reverses imposition of a domestic violence fee and remands with instructions to vacate that part of the judgment.
 

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. 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?

  2. 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?

  3. 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.

  4. 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?

  5. Seventh Circuit Court Judge Diane Wood has stated in “The Rule of Law in Times of Stress” (2003), “that neither laws nor the procedures used to create or implement them should be secret; and . . . the laws must not be arbitrary.” According to the American Bar Association, Wood’s quote drives home this point: The rule of law also requires that people can expect predictable results from the legal system; this is what Judge Wood implies when she says that “the laws must not be arbitrary.” Predictable results mean that people who act in the same way can expect the law to treat them in the same way. If similar actions do not produce similar legal outcomes, people cannot use the law to guide their actions, and a “rule of law” does not exist.

ADVERTISEMENT