Opinions Aug. 30, 2011

August 30, 2011
Back to TopE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

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

Indiana Supreme Court had posted no opinions at IL deadline.

Indiana Court of Appeals
Martin A. Villalon, Jr. v. State of Indiana
Criminal. Affirms conviction of felony murder and 60-year sentence, holding the juvenile court did not abuse its discretion in waiving Villalon to adult court, and that the Sixth Amendment does not apply to juvenile proceedings.

State of Indiana v. Alfonso M. Chavez
Criminal. Affirms trial court’s determination that statements made implicating Chavez are inadmissible as hearsay evidence, and that, accordingly, the state’s claim that the Sixth Amendment does not require exclusion of the evidence will not be considered as part of the appeal.

Wayne K. Smith v. State of Indiana
Criminal. Affirms trial court’s denial of motion to suppress evidence, holding that the search warrant did not violate Article 1, Section 11 of the Indiana Constitution.

D.W. v. State of Indiana (NFP)
Juvenile. Affirms judgment of juvenile court committing D.W. to the Indiana Department of Correction.

Marvin Mallet v. State of Indiana (NFP)
Criminal. Affirms denial of motion for misdemeanor treatment.

Jennifer Fulton v. State of Indiana (NFP)
Criminal. Affirms convictions of Class D felony possession of cocaine and associated charges.

Tom Kenneth v. State of Indiana (NFP)
Criminal. Affirms conviction of Class A felony burglary.

Brian C. Feely v. State of Indiana (NFP)
Criminal. Affirms sentence for Class C felony operating a vehicle while intoxicated after having been convicted of operating a vehicle while intoxicated causing death.

Joe M. Meyers v. State of Indiana (NFP)
Post conviction. Affirms denial of request for post-conviction relief.

Terrance R. Huber v. Montgomery County Sheriff (NFP)
Civil tort. Affirms trial court’s award of discovery sanctions to the Montgomery County Sheriff and remands to the trial court for a determination of appellate attorney fees and costs to be awarded to the sheriff’s office.

Lawrence Ray Holley II v. State of Indiana (NFP)
Post conviction. Dismisses appeal, holding that the post-conviction court’s order denying Holley’s petition constituted a final judgment.

Term. of Parent-Child Rel. of B.M.; L.M. v. IDCS (NFP)
Juvenile. Affirms termination of father’s parental rights.

Jay A. Thomas v. State of Indiana (NFP)
Criminal. Affirms revocation of probation.

Terry Durbin v. State of Indiana (NFP)
Criminal. Affirms conviction of Class A felony murder.

William R. Robison v. State of Indiana (NFP)
Criminal. Affirms trial court’s finding that Robison violated the terms of his probation and should serve five years of his previously suspended sentence.

In Re The Marriage of: Daniel Madden v. Tracy Madden n/k/a Tracy Chavez (NFP)
Domestic relation. Affirms trial court’s denial of father’s petition to modify custody. Denies mother’s request to remand to the trial court for assessment of appellate attorney fees against father, finding the fee assessment is unwarranted.

Indiana Tax Court had posted no opinions at IL deadline.


Sponsored by
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. So men who think they are girls at heart can use the lady's potty? Usually the longer line is for the women's loo, so, the ladies may be the ones to experience temporary gender dysphoria, who knows? Is it ok to joke about his or is that hate? I may need a brainwash too, hey! I may just object to my own comment, later, if I get myself properly "oriented"

  2. Heritage, what Heritage? The New Age is dawning .... an experiment in disordered liberty and social fragmentation is upon us .... "Carmel City Council approved a human rights ordinance with a 4-3 vote Monday night after hearing about two hours of divided public testimony. The ordinance bans discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation or gender identity, among other traits. Council members Rick Sharp, Carol Schleif, Sue Finkam and Ron Carter voted in favor of it. The three council members opposing it—Luci Snyder, Kevin Rider and Eric Seidensticker—all said they were against any form of discrimination, but had issues with the wording and possible unintended consequences of the proposal." Kardashian is the new Black.

  3. Can anyone please tell me if anyone is appealing the law that certain sex offenders can't be on school property. How is somebody supposed to watch their children's sports games or graduations, this law needs revised such as sex offenders that are on school property must have another non-offender adult with them at all times while on school property. That they must go to the event and then leave directly afterwards. This is only going to hurt the children of the offenders and the father/ son mother/ daughter vice versa relationship. Please email me and let me know if there is a group that is appealing this for reasons other than voting and religion. Thank you.

  4. Should any attorney who argues against the abortion industry, or presents arguments based upon the Founders' concept of Higher Law, (like that marriage precedes the State) have to check in with the Judges and Lawyers Assistance Program for a mandatory mental health review? Some think so ... that could certainly cut down on cases such as this "cluttering up" the SCOTUS docket ... use JLAP to deny all uber conservative attorneys licenses and uber conservative representation will tank. If the ends justify the means, why not?

  5. Tell them sherry Mckay told you to call, they're trying to get all the people that have been wronged and held unlawfully to sign up on this class action lawsuit.