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
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. Do I have to hire an attorney to get co-guardianship of my brother? My father has guardianship and my older sister was his co-guardian until this Dec 2014 when she passed and my father was me to go on as the co-guardian, but funds are limit and we need to get this process taken care of quickly as our fathers health isn't the greatest. So please advise me if there is anyway to do this our self or if it requires a lawyer? Thank you

  2. I have been on this program while on parole from 2011-2013. No person should be forced mentally to share private details of their personal life with total strangers. Also giving permission for a mental therapist to report to your parole agent that your not participating in group therapy because you don't have the financial mean to be in the group therapy. I was personally singled out and sent back three times for not having money and also sent back within the six month when you aren't to be sent according to state law. I will work to het this INSOMM's removed from this state. I also had twelve or thirteen parole agents with a fifteen month period. Thanks for your time.

  3. Our nation produces very few jurists of the caliber of Justice DOUGLAS and his peers these days. Here is that great civil libertarian, who recognized government as both a blessing and, when corrupted by ideological interests, a curse: "Once the investigator has only the conscience of government as a guide, the conscience can become ‘ravenous,’ as Cromwell, bent on destroying Thomas More, said in Bolt, A Man For All Seasons (1960), p. 120. The First Amendment mirrors many episodes where men, harried and harassed by government, sought refuge in their conscience, as these lines of Thomas More show: ‘MORE: And when we stand before God, and you are sent to Paradise for doing according to your conscience, *575 and I am damned for not doing according to mine, will you come with me, for fellowship? ‘CRANMER: So those of us whose names are there are damned, Sir Thomas? ‘MORE: I don't know, Your Grace. I have no window to look into another man's conscience. I condemn no one. ‘CRANMER: Then the matter is capable of question? ‘MORE: Certainly. ‘CRANMER: But that you owe obedience to your King is not capable of question. So weigh a doubt against a certainty—and sign. ‘MORE: Some men think the Earth is round, others think it flat; it is a matter capable of question. But if it is flat, will the King's command make it round? And if it is round, will the King's command flatten it? No, I will not sign.’ Id., pp. 132—133. DOUGLAS THEN WROTE: Where government is the Big Brother,11 privacy gives way to surveillance. **909 But our commitment is otherwise. *576 By the First Amendment we have staked our security on freedom to promote a multiplicity of ideas, to associate at will with kindred spirits, and to defy governmental intrusion into these precincts" Gibson v. Florida Legislative Investigation Comm., 372 U.S. 539, 574-76, 83 S. Ct. 889, 908-09, 9 L. Ed. 2d 929 (1963) Mr. Justice DOUGLAS, concurring. I write: Happy Memorial Day to all -- God please bless our fallen who lived and died to preserve constitutional governance in our wonderful series of Republics. And God open the eyes of those government officials who denounce the constitutions of these Republics by arbitrary actions arising out capricious motives.

  4. From back in the day before secularism got a stranglehold on Hoosier jurists comes this great excerpt via Indiana federal court judge Allan Sharp, dedicated to those many Indiana government attorneys (with whom I have dealt) who count the law as a mere tool, an optional tool that is not to be used when political correctness compels a more acceptable result than merely following the path that the law directs: ALLEN SHARP, District Judge. I. In a scene following a visit by Henry VIII to the home of Sir Thomas More, playwriter Robert Bolt puts the following words into the mouths of his characters: Margaret: Father, that man's bad. MORE: There is no law against that. ROPER: There is! God's law! MORE: Then God can arrest him. ROPER: Sophistication upon sophistication! MORE: No, sheer simplicity. The law, Roper, the law. I know what's legal not what's right. And I'll stick to what's legal. ROPER: Then you set man's law above God's! MORE: No, far below; but let me draw your attention to a fact I'm not God. The currents and eddies of right and wrong, which you find such plain sailing, I can't navigate. I'm no voyager. But in the thickets of law, oh, there I'm a forester. I doubt if there's a man alive who could follow me there, thank God... ALICE: (Exasperated, pointing after Rich) While you talk, he's gone! MORE: And go he should, if he was the Devil himself, until he broke the law! ROPER: So now you'd give the Devil benefit of law! MORE: Yes. What would you do? Cut a great road through the law to get after the Devil? ROPER: I'd cut down every law in England to do that! MORE: (Roused and excited) Oh? (Advances on Roper) And when the last law was down, and the Devil turned round on you where would you hide, Roper, the laws being flat? (He leaves *1257 him) This country's planted thick with laws from coast to coast man's laws, not God's and if you cut them down and you're just the man to do it d'you really think you would stand upright in the winds that would blow then? (Quietly) Yes, I'd give the Devil benefit of law, for my own safety's sake. ROPER: I have long suspected this; this is the golden calf; the law's your god. MORE: (Wearily) Oh, Roper, you're a fool, God's my god... (Rather bitterly) But I find him rather too (Very bitterly) subtle... I don't know where he is nor what he wants. ROPER: My God wants service, to the end and unremitting; nothing else! MORE: (Dryly) Are you sure that's God! He sounds like Moloch. But indeed it may be God And whoever hunts for me, Roper, God or Devil, will find me hiding in the thickets of the law! And I'll hide my daughter with me! Not hoist her up the mainmast of your seagoing principles! They put about too nimbly! (Exit More. They all look after him). Pgs. 65-67, A MAN FOR ALL SEASONS A Play in Two Acts, Robert Bolt, Random House, New York, 1960. Linley E. Pearson, Atty. Gen. of Indiana, Indianapolis, for defendants. Childs v. Duckworth, 509 F. Supp. 1254, 1256 (N.D. Ind. 1981) aff'd, 705 F.2d 915 (7th Cir. 1983)

  5. "Meanwhile small- and mid-size firms are getting squeezed and likely will not survive unless they become a boutique firm." I've been a business attorney in small, and now mid-size firm for over 30 years, and for over 30 years legal consultants have been preaching this exact same mantra of impending doom for small and mid-sized firms -- verbatim. This claim apparently helps them gin up merger opportunities from smaller firms who become convinced that they need to become larger overnight. The claim that large corporations are interested in cost-saving and efficiency has likewise been preached for decades, and is likewise bunk. If large corporations had any real interest in saving money they wouldn't use large law firms whose rates are substantially higher than those of high-quality mid-sized firms.

ADVERTISEMENT