ILNews

Opinions Dec. 10, 2010

December 10, 2010
Keywords
Back to TopE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

The following opinion was posted after IL deadline Thursday:
Indiana Supreme Court
Jeffrey E. Akard v. State of Indiana
79S02-1009-CR-478
Criminal. Summarily affirms the Indiana Court of Appeals in all respects except as to its conclusion that the trial court’s sentencing decision was inappropriate and required a substantial upward revision to 118 years. Declines to intervene in the trial court’s determination that the appropriate sentence is 93 years. Makes a minor correction to Akard’s sentence on his two Class C felony battery charges and revises his sentence to be an aggregate of 94 years. Remands for re-sentencing.

Today’s opinions
Indiana Supreme Court had posted no opinions at IL deadline.


Indiana Court of Appeals
David Snowberger v. State of Indiana
09A02-1005-CR-570
Criminal. Reverses revocation of probation. Snowberger’s plea agreement to nonsupport of a dependent child required the state to show his failure to pay child support to be willful and he has the ability to make payments before his probation could be revoked. The evidence was insufficient to support the revocation.  

G.D. v. Review Board
93A02-1007-EX-718
Civil. Reverses denial of G.D.’s motion to reinstate his appeal from an adverse determination of his claim for unemployment benefits. There is nothing in the record to support the director of Unemployment Insurance Appeals’ or the review board’s decisions to deny his motion to reinstate his appeal based upon the lack of showing of good cause. Remands for further proceedings.

Jonathon L. Dillard v. State of Indiana (NFP)
71A03-1008-CR-427
Criminal. Affirms conviction of Class D felony attempted theft.

Carlene L. Henry v. State of Indiana (NFP)
49A04-1006-CR-326
Criminal. Affirms conviction of Class D felony theft.

Tommie Reives v. State of Indiana (NFP)
49A02-1006-CR-796
Criminal. Affirms denial of petition for earned credit time.

Indiana Tax Court had posted no opinions at IL deadline.
 

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