ILNews

Opinions Aug. 30, 2011

August 30, 2011
Keywords
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
45A03-1010-CR-544
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
45A03-1012-CR-619
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
28A05-1011-CR-704
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)
89A03-1104-JV-176
Juvenile. Affirms judgment of juvenile court committing D.W. to the Indiana Department of Correction.

Marvin Mallet v. State of Indiana (NFP)
45A03-1102-CR-51
Criminal. Affirms denial of motion for misdemeanor treatment.

Jennifer Fulton v. State of Indiana (NFP)
27A02-1101-CR-132
Criminal. Affirms convictions of Class D felony possession of cocaine and associated charges.

Tom Kenneth v. State of Indiana (NFP)
49A02-1102-CR-167
Criminal. Affirms conviction of Class A felony burglary.

Brian C. Feely v. State of Indiana (NFP)
71A03-1101-CR-20
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)
49A04-1103-PC-144
Post conviction. Affirms denial of request for post-conviction relief.

Terrance R. Huber v. Montgomery County Sheriff (NFP)
54A01-1008-CT-558
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)
79A02-1005-PC-652
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)
49A02-1012-JT-1441
Juvenile. Affirms termination of father’s parental rights.

Jay A. Thomas v. State of Indiana (NFP)
36A01-1011-CR-583
Criminal. Affirms revocation of probation.

Terry Durbin v. State of Indiana (NFP)
68A01-1012-CR-608
Criminal. Affirms conviction of Class A felony murder.

William R. Robison v. State of Indiana (NFP)
22A01-1102-CR-33
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)
46A05-1102-DR-115
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.
 

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. 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?

  2. 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.

  3. Linda, I sure hope you are not seeking a law license, for such eighteenth century sentiments could result in your denial in some jurisdictions minting attorneys for our tolerant and inclusive profession.

  4. Mazel Tov to the newlyweds. And to those bakers, photographers, printers, clerks, judges and others who will lose careers and social standing for not saluting the New World (Dis)Order, we can all direct our Two Minutes of Hate as Big Brother asks of us. Progress! Onward!

  5. My daughter was taken from my home at the end of June/2014. I said I would sign the safety plan but my husband would not. My husband said he would leave the house so my daughter could stay with me but the case worker said no her mind is made up she is taking my daughter. My daughter went to a friends and then the friend filed a restraining order which she was told by dcs if she did not then they would take my daughter away from her. The restraining order was not in effect until we were to go to court. Eventually it was dropped but for 2 months DCS refused to allow me to have any contact and was using the restraining order as the reason but it was not in effect. This was Dcs violating my rights. Please help me I don't have the money for an attorney. Can anyone take this case Pro Bono?

ADVERTISEMENT