ILNews

Opinions Aug. 29, 2014

August 29, 2014
Keywords
Back to TopE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

Indiana Court of Appeals
C.H. v. State of Indiana
49A02-1310-JV-904
Juvenile. Affirms officer’s stop of C.H. because he was believed to be a suspect in a crime and the order of restitution because C.H. never objected to the order he pay restitution. Reverses adjudication of what would be Class B misdemeanor unlawful entry of a motor vehicle because the same evidence was used to adjudicate C.H. of that charge and what would be Class A misdemeanor trespass. Remands for further proceedings.

Ronald DeWayne Thompson v. State of Indiana
45A03-1401-CR-8
Criminal. Reverses convictions of Class A felony rape and Class B felony criminal deviate conduct because the trial court erred when it admitted evidence Thompson was a suspect in another sexual assault case. That evidence was inadmissible under Evidence Rule 404(b) and was prejudicial. Remands for a new trial.

Thomas D. Dillman v. State of Indiana
53A05-1306-CR-274
Criminal. Affirms denial of motion for the trial court to release Dillman’s cash bond. The state concedes that the trial court was not statutorily authorized to retain his cash bond, but the trial court did not abuse its discretion because Dillman waived his argument, and the error was not fundamental.

David Hooker v. Shari Hooker
82A04-1311-DR-592
Domestic relation. Affirms modification of David Hooker’s child support obligation. The trial court did not abuse its discretion by reducing his child support payment nor did it violate his due process rights.

Julianna Eagan, formerly Julianna Paciorkowski v. Christopher Paciorkowski (NFP)
20A03-1312-DR-493
Domestic relation. Affirms determination that daughter J.P. repudiated her relationship with her father so he was no longer obligated to pay her educational expenses.

Julius J. Rice v. State of Indiana (NFP)
49A05-1311-CR-552
Criminal. Affirms convictions of Class B felony criminal confinement, Class D felony criminal recklessness and Class A misdemeanor battery.

John Palatas v. State of Indiana (NFP)
89A05-1403-CR-134
Criminal. Affirms aggregate 45-year sentence following guilty plea to several drug charges.

Calvin Turner v. State of Indiana (NFP)
48A04-1403-CR-96
Criminal. Affirms three-year aggregate sentence imposed for convictions of two counts of Class D felony theft.

Kalan Murphy v. State of Indiana (NFP)
71A03-1311-CR-433
Criminal. Affirms conviction of Class C felony battery with a deadly weapon.

Bruce Johnson-El v. State of Indiana (NFP)
09A02-1302-PC-270
Post conviction. Affirms denial of motion to correct error.

Herman Gehl, II v. State of Indiana (NFP)
59A01-1401-PC-12
Post conviction. Affirms denial of petition for post-conviction relief.

Colby R. McKnelly v. State of Indiana (NFP)
30A05-1307-CR-378
Criminal. Affirms convictions and sentence for murder and Class C felony battery with a deadly weapon. Remands to correct an error in the abstract of judgment.

Charles E. Justise, Sr. v. Indiana Department of Correction (NFP)
49A05-1309-PL-462
Civil plenary. Affirms dismissal of complaint for failure to pay filing fees.

Quenton D. Davis v. State of Indiana (NFP)
02A05-1401-CR-28
Criminal. Affirms conviction of Class D felony domestic battery.

Jeffrey Elkins v. State of Indiana (NFP)
28A01-1404-CR-166
Criminal. Affirms sentence following guilty plea to Class D felony attempted theft.

Johnnylee Sims v. State of Indiana (NFP)
71A05-1403-CR-98
Criminal. Affirms conviction of Class C felony burglary.
 

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. 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!!!

  2. 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?

  3. 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?

  4. 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.

  5. 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?

ADVERTISEMENT