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. It's an appreciable step taken by the government to curb the child abuse that are happening in the schools. Employees in the schools those are selected without background check can not be trusted. A thorough background check on the teachers or any other other new employees must be performed to choose the best and quality people. Those who are already employed in the past should also be checked for best precaution. The future of kids can be saved through this simple process. However, the checking process should be conducted by the help of a trusted background checking agency(https://www.affordablebackgroundchecks.com/).

  2. Almost everything connects to internet these days. From your computers and Smartphones to wearable gadgets and smart refrigerators in your home, everything is linked to the Internet. Although this convenience empowers usto access our personal devices from anywhere in the world such as an IP camera, it also deprives control of our online privacy. Cyber criminals, hackers, spies and everyone else has realized that we don’t have complete control on who can access our personal data. We have to take steps to to protect it like keeping Senseless password. Dont leave privacy unprotected. Check out this article for more ways: https://www.purevpn.com/blog/data-privacy-in-the-age-of-internet-of-things/

  3. You need to look into Celadon not paying sign on bonuses. We call get the run

  4. My parents took advantage of the fact that I was homeless in 2012 and went to court and got Legal Guardianship I my 2 daughters. I am finally back on my feet and want them back, but now they want to fight me on it. I want to raise my children and have them almost all the time on the weekends. Mynparents are both almost 70 years old and they play favorites which bothers me a lot. Do I have a leg to stand on if I go to court to terminate lehal guardianship? My kids want to live with me and I want to raise them, this was supposed to be temporary, and now it is turning into a fight. Ridiculous

  5. Here's my two cents. While in Texas in 2007 I was not registered because I only had to do it for ten years. So imagine my surprise as I find myself forced to register in Texas because indiana can't get their head out of their butt long enough to realize they passed an ex post facto law in 2006. So because Indiana had me listed as a failure to register Texas said I had to do it there. Now if Indiana had done right by me all along I wouldn't need the aclu to defend my rights. But such is life.

ADVERTISEMENT