ILNews

Opinions Dec. 21, 2012

December 21, 2012
Keywords
Back to TopE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

Indiana Court of Appeals
Steven E. Malloch v. State of Indiana
17A03-1201-CR-37
Criminal. Affirms conviction of Class A felony child molesting for an incident involving his stepdaughter. There was no prosecutorial misconduct and the trial court did not err by admitting Malloch’s apology letter to C.P. Although Malloch did not receive a perfect trial, the appellate judges are confident he received a fair trial.

Kenneth S. Tipton v. State of Indiana
47A01-1201-CR-4
Criminal. Affirms conviction of Class C felony criminal recklessness. Believes someone shooting a gun at a residence may, for purposes of a criminal recklessness prosecution, create a substantial risk of bodily injury to another person even if the resident is away from home at the moment of the shooting.

Patrick Austin v. State of Indiana
20A03-1112-CR-588
Criminal. Affirms conviction of and sentence for two counts of Class A felony possession of cocaine. The trial court did not abuse its discretion in continuing Austin’s trial. Sentence is not inappropriate as Austin was caught transporting cocaine worth over four million dollars, and he had a prior felony conviction and two firearms-related arrests, and had previously been found with one million dollars in cash, which police seized.

Charles D. Stutz v. State of Indiana (NFP)
32A04-1205-CR-255
Criminal. Affirms convictions of Class D felonies resisting law enforcement and intimidation.

Michael R. Anderson, Jr. v. State of Indiana (NFP)
71A04-1204-CR-220
Criminal. Affirms convictions of Class C misdemeanor operating a motor vehicle while never having received a driver’s license, Class A misdemeanor possession of marijuana and possession of marijuana as a Class D felony.

Term. of the Parent-Child Rel. of B.W., Minor Child; R.C., Father v. Indiana Dept. of Child Services (NFP)
02A03-1204-JT-173
Juvenile. Affirms involuntary termination of parental rights.

Joseph Lamar Johnson v. State of Indiana (NFP)
18A04-1206-CR-316
Criminal. Affirms sentence following conviction of Class D felony possession of marijuana after a jury found Johnson guilty of Class A misdemeanor possession of marijuana and found he had previously been convicted of possession of marijuana.

Anthony K. McCullough v. State of Indiana (NFP)
49A02-1110-CR-955
Criminal. Grants rehearing and reverses previous decision. Now affirms the revocation of McCullough’s probation.
 

ADVERTISEMENT

Sponsored by
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. The practitioners and judges who hail E-filing as the Saviour of the West need to contain their respective excitements. E-filing is federal court requires the practitioner to cram his motion practice into pigeonholes created by IT people. Compound motions or those seeking alternative relief are effectively barred, unless the practitioner wants to receive a tart note from some functionary admonishing about the "problem". E-filing is just another method by which courts and judges transfer their burden to practitioners, who are the really the only powerless components of the system. Of COURSE it is easier for the court to require all of its imput to conform to certain formats, but this imposition does NOT improve the quality of the practice of law and does NOT improve the ability of the practitioner to advocate for his client or to fashion pleadings that exactly conform to his client's best interests. And we should be very wary of the disingenuous pablum about the costs. The courts will find a way to stick it to the practitioner. Lake County is a VERY good example of this rapaciousness. Any one who does not believe this is invited to review the various special fees that system imposes upon practitioners- as practitioners- and upon each case ON TOP of the court costs normal in every case manually filed. Jurisprudence according to Aldous Huxley.

  2. Any attorneys who practice in federal court should be able to say the same as I can ... efiling is great. I have been doing it in fed court since it started way back. Pacer has its drawbacks, but the ability to hit an e-docket and pull up anything and everything onscreen is a huge plus for a litigator, eps the sole practitioner, who lacks a filing clerk and the paralegal support of large firms. Were I an Indiana attorney I would welcome this great step forward.

  3. Can we get full disclosure on lobbyist's payments to legislatures such as Mr Buck? AS long as there are idiots that are disrespectful of neighbors and intent on shooting fireworks every night, some kind of regulations are needed.

  4. I am the mother of the child in this case. My silence on the matter was due to the fact that I filed, both in Illinois and Indiana, child support cases. I even filed supporting documentation with the Indiana family law court. Not sure whether this information was provided to the court of appeals or not. Wish the case was done before moving to Indiana, because no matter what, there is NO WAY the state of Illinois would have allowed an appeal on a child support case!

  5. "No one is safe when the Legislature is in session."

ADVERTISEMENT