ILNews

Opinions Aug. 21, 2014

August 21, 2014
Keywords
Back to TopE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

Indiana Court of Appeals
James S. Littrell v. State of Indiana
79A02-1401-CR-24
Criminal.  Affirms conviction of Class B felony possession of cocaine. Finds Littrell’s right to a fast and speedy trial was not violated, the evidence is sufficient to support his conviction, and his sentence is appropriate. Remands for the sole purpose of correcting a typographical error in the guilty plea and sentencing orders.

Citizens Action Coalition of Indiana, Inc., Save the Valley, Inc., Sierra Club, and Valley Watch, Inc. v. Duke Energy Indiana, Inc., Indiana Office of Utility Consumer Counselor, et al.
93A02-1310-EX-835
Agency action.  Affirms an order of the Indiana Utility Regulatory Commission approving Duke Energy’s request to include power plant construction costs incurred April – September 2012 in a rate adjustment rider, in implementation of a settlement agreement between Duke, the Indiana Office of the Utility Consumer Counselor and other entities. The interveners have not demonstrated that the commission acted contrary to law by approving the order.

Darryll Beamon v. State of Indiana (NFP)
49A05-1312-CR-632
Criminal. Reverses conviction of Class D felony theft and remands for resentencing on Beamon’s conviction of resisting law enforcement.

Latorrea D. Ware v. State of Indiana (NFP)
20A03-1401-CR-18
Criminal. Affirms convictions of Class A felony dealing in cocaine and Class D felony maintaining a common nuisance.

John Naylor v. State of Indiana (NFP)
31A01-1301-PC-4
Post conviction. Affirms denial of pro se petition for post-conviction relief.

Antonio D. Rose v. State of Indiana (NFP)
45A03-1312-PC-478
Post conviction. Affirms denial of petition for post-conviction relief.

Kurnie Nickson v. State of Indiana (NFP)
48A02-1307-CR-658
Criminal. Affirms convictions of two counts of battery – one as a Class C felony for being committed by means of a deadly weapon and one as a Class A misdemeanor for resulting in serious bodily injury. Reverses sentence because it is inappropriate and remands for resentencing.

Darryl J. Goodwin v. State of Indiana (NFP)
18A05-1309-CR-468
Criminal. Affirms conviction and sentence for two Class C felony counts of stalking and Class D felony residential entry.

Leonard Abshier, III v. State of Indiana (NFP)
82A05-1401-CR-19
Criminal. Affirms revocation of probation.

Megan Renea Mecum v. State of Indiana (NFP)
82A04-1401-CR-4
Criminal.  Affirms convictions of murder, Class D felony theft, Class A misdemeanor invasion of privacy and Class C felony conspiracy to commit robbery.

David Jones v. State of Indiana (NFP)
49A02-1312-CR-1032
Criminal. Affirms conviction of Class A misdemeanor carrying a handgun without a license.

John Watson v. State of Indiana (NFP)
49A02-1312-CR-1025
Criminal. Affirms murder conviction.
 

ADVERTISEMENT

Sponsored by
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. Just an aside, but regardless of the outcome, I 'm proud of Judge William Hughes. He was the original magistrate on the Home place issue. He ruled for Home Place, and was primaried by Brainard for it. Their tool Poindexter failed to unseat Hughes, who won support for his honesty and courage throughout the county, and he was reelected Judge of Hamilton County's Superior Court. You can still stand for something and survive. Thanks, Judge Hughes!

  2. CCHP's real accomplishment is the 2015 law signed by Gov Pence that basically outlaws any annexation that is forced where a 65% majority of landowners in the affected area disagree. Regardless of whether HP wins or loses, the citizens of Indiana will not have another fiasco like this. The law Gov Pence signed is a direct result of this malgovernance.

  3. I gave tempparry guardship to a friend of my granddaughter in 2012. I went to prison. I had custody. My daughter went to prison to. We are out. My daughter gave me custody but can get her back. She was not order to give me custody . but now we want granddaughter back from friend. She's 14 now. What rights do we have

  4. This sure is not what most who value good governance consider the Rule of Law to entail: "In a letter dated March 2, which Brizzi forwarded to IBJ, the commission dismissed the grievance “on grounds that there is not reasonable cause to believe that you are guilty of misconduct.”" Yet two month later reasonable cause does exist? (Or is the commission forging ahead, the need for reasonable belief be damned? -- A seeming violation of the Rules of Profession Ethics on the part of the commission) Could the rule of law theory cause one to believe that an explanation is in order? Could it be that Hoosier attorneys live under Imperial Law (which is also a t-word that rhymes with infamy) in which the Platonic guardians can do no wrong and never owe the plebeian class any explanation for their powerful actions. (Might makes it right?) Could this be a case of politics directing the commission, as celebrated IU Mauer Professor (the late) Patrick Baude warned was happening 20 years ago in his controversial (whisteblowing) ethics lecture on a quite similar topic: http://www.repository.law.indiana.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1498&context=ilj

  5. I have a case presently pending cert review before the SCOTUS that reveals just how Indiana regulates the bar. I have been denied licensure for life for holding the wrong views and questioning the grand inquisitors as to their duties as to state and federal constitutional due process. True story: https://www.scribd.com/doc/299040839/2016Petitionforcert-to-SCOTUS Shorter, Amici brief serving to frame issue as misuse of govt licensure: https://www.scribd.com/doc/312841269/Thomas-More-Society-Amicus-Brown-v-Ind-Bd-of-Law-Examiners

ADVERTISEMENT