ILNews

Opinions Dec. 21, 2011

December 21, 2011
Keywords
Back to TopE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

The following Indiana Supreme Court opinion was posted after IL deadline Tuesday:
In the Matter of: Lawrence T. Newman
49S00-0907-DI-331
Discipline. Suspends Lawrence Newman for 18 months without automatic reinstatement. Finds he committed misconduct by failing to comply with a client's reasonable requests for an accounting of the hours he worked prior to being discharged, by charging an unreasonable fee, by failing to withdraw from representation promptly after being discharged and by failing to return the client's file after its retention was no longer necessary to secure payment of his fee. Justice Rucker dissents in part and Justice David did not participate in the case.

Wednesday’s opinions
7th Circuit Court of Appeals had posted no Indiana opinions at IL deadline.


Indiana Court of Appeals
Hans Maldonado v. State of Indiana (NFP)
29A05-1104-CR-231
Criminal. Affirms conviction of Class C misdemeanor operating a vehicle while intoxicated.

Dominick L. Wilson v. State of Indiana (NFP)
45A04-1105-CR-219
Criminal. Affirms sentence following guilty plea to Class A felony voluntary manslaughter.

Arthur D. Miles v. State of Indiana (NFP)
49A02-1104-PC-320
Post conviction. Affirms sentence following guilty plea to Class B felony dealing in cocaine.

Thomas Aufiero v. Daniel Ricks (NFP)
79A04-1107-PO-350
Protection order. Affirms entry of the protective order. Reverses order with respect to the provision limiting Aufiero from being present on the premises of Ricks’ place of employment and remands for reconsideration of that provision’s scope.

Jesse J. Dixon v. State of Indiana (NFP)
35A05-1003-CR-822
Criminal. Affirms convictions of and sentence for two counts of Class A felony child molesting and one count of Class C felony child molesting.

Lyndon J. Woodward v. State of Indiana (NFP)
02A05-1104-CR-219
Criminal. Affirms convictions of possession of paraphernalia as a Class A misdemeanor and two counts of Class D felony possession of a controlled substance.

Michael A. Caputo v. State of Indiana (NFP)
03A01-1103-PC-123
Post conviction. Affirms denial of petition for post-conviction relief.

The Indiana Supreme Court and Indiana Tax Court had posted no opinions at IL deadline.
 

ADVERTISEMENT

Sponsored by
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. Indiana's seatbelt law is not punishable as a crime. It is an infraction. Apparently some of our Circuit judges have deemed settled law inapplicable if it fails to fit their litmus test of political correctness. Extrapolating to redefine terms of behavior in a violation of immigration law to the entire body of criminal law leaves a smorgasbord of opportunity for judicial mischief.

  2. I wonder if $10 diversions for failure to wear seat belts are considered moral turpitude in federal immigration law like they are under Indiana law? Anyone know?

  3. What a fine article, thank you! I can testify firsthand and by detailed legal reports (at end of this note) as to the dire consequences of rejecting this truth from the fine article above: "The inclusion and expansion of this right [to jury] in Indiana’s Constitution is a clear reflection of our state’s intention to emphasize the importance of every Hoosier’s right to make their case in front of a jury of their peers." Over $20? Every Hoosier? Well then how about when your very vocation is on the line? How about instead of a jury of peers, one faces a bevy of political appointees, mini-czars, who care less about due process of the law than the real czars did? Instead of trial by jury, trial by ideological ordeal run by Orwellian agents? Well that is built into more than a few administrative law committees of the Ind S.Ct., and it is now being weaponized, as is revealed in articles posted at this ezine, to root out post moderns heresies like refusal to stand and pledge allegiance to all things politically correct. My career was burned at the stake for not so saluting, but I think I was just one of the early logs. Due, at least in part, to the removal of the jury from bar admission and bar discipline cases, many more fires will soon be lit. Perhaps one awaits you, dear heretic? Oh, at that Ind. article 12 plank about a remedy at law for every damage done ... ah, well, the founders evidently meant only for those damages done not by the government itself, rabid statists that they were. (Yes, that was sarcasm.) My written reports available here: Denied petition for cert (this time around): http://tinyurl.com/zdmawmw Denied petition for cert (from the 2009 denial and five year banishment): http://tinyurl.com/zcypybh Related, not written by me: Amicus brief: http://tinyurl.com/hvh7qgp

  4. Justice has finally been served. So glad that Dr. Ley can finally sleep peacefully at night knowing the truth has finally come to the surface.

  5. While this right is guaranteed by our Constitution, it has in recent years been hampered by insurance companies, i.e.; the practice of the plaintiff's own insurance company intervening in an action and filing a lien against any proceeds paid to their insured. In essence, causing an additional financial hurdle for a plaintiff to overcome at trial in terms of overall award. In a very real sense an injured party in exercise of their right to trial by jury may be the only party in a cause that would end up with zero compensation.

ADVERTISEMENT