ILNews

Opinions Dec. 27, 2010

December 27, 2010
Keywords
Back to TopE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

Indiana Supreme Court had posted no opinions at IL deadline.

Indiana Court of Appeals
Paternity of M.F., et al.; J.F. v. W.M.
21A04-1002-JP-84
Juvenile. Affirms denial of mother’s petition to establish paternity with respect to M.F. Mother failed to prove that insemination incurred in such a way as to render the donor agreement unenforceable and void as against public policy. Reverses finding that a valid, enforceable contract existed that would prohibit an action to establish paternity of C.F., the second child born. Remands to grant mother’s petition to establish paternity with respect to C.F. Judge Crone dissents in part.

Victor T. Jones v. State of Indiana
32A04-1004-CR-309
Criminal. Affirms conviction of resisting law enforcement as a Class D felony. The state’s naming of Officer Stewart in the charging information, which was not the correct name, was surplusage that was not required for a conviction, and therefore the evidence was sufficient to convict Jones of resisting law enforcement. Jones was subjected to double jeopardy when he was convicted of enhanced versions of both resisting law enforcement and criminal recklessness. Remands to reduce his criminal recklessness conviction to a Class B misdemeanor and re-sentence him accordingly. Reverses the jury, public defender, and docket fees and remands for further proceedings.

The Matter of D.R. v. State of Indiana (NFP)
49A02-1003-JV-436
Juvenile. Reverses and vacates D.R.’s finding for attempted carjacking as a Class B felony if committed by an adult and remands with instructions to amend the dispositional order to reflect a true finding for attempted robbery only, a Class B felony if committed by an adult.

Joshua Beal v. State of Indiana (NFP)
49A02-1003-CR-347
Criminal. Affirms conviction of Class A misdemeanor battery and the order Beal pay restitution to his victim.

S.J. v. State of Indiana (NFP)
83A05-1005-JV-328
Juvenile. Affirms adjudication that S.J. committed what would be Class B misdemeanor battery if committed by an adult.

Miguel Alvarado v. State of Indiana (NFP)
12A02-1001-CR-159
Criminal. Affirms denial of motion to withdraw guilty pleas to criminal confinement and battery.

Michael J. Skoczylas v. Peggy C. Skoczylas (NFP)
71A03-1005-DR-317
Domestic relation. Affirms trial court’s adoption of the values of the parties' United States Postal Service pensions. Reverses decision that Michael be responsible for their son’s student loans and Peggy be responsible for their daughter’s loans. Remands with instructions.

Martel Johnson v. State of Indiana (NFP)
71A03-1003-CR-169
Criminal. Affirms conviction of felony murder.

Kenneth E. Lovelace v. State of Indiana (NFP)
49A05-1003-CR-183
Criminal. Affirms convictions of guilty but mentally ill and sentence for Class B felony burglary and Class D felony attempted theft.

Term. of Parent-Child Rel. of J.B., et al.; A.M. and D.B. v. IDCS (NFP)
07A04-1005-JT-322
Juvenile. Affirms involuntary termination of parental rights.

McIntyre Brothers, Inc. v. Kim D. Henderson, Melinda J. Henderson, Sydneyco, LLC, et al. (NFP)
47A01-1004-PL-172
Civil plenary. Affirms partial summary judgment to the effect that apportion of the Fifth Third mortgage lien, specifically that attributable to the Stone City mortgage payoff, is superior to McIntyre’s mechanic’s lien. Reverses order of foreclosure which decreed that McIntyre had no mechanic’s lien. Remands for further proceedings.

Denon Dabney v. State of Indiana (NFP)
49A02-1004-CR-474
Criminal. Affirms conviction of Class B felony possession of a firearm by a serious violent felon.

Virgil L. Smith v. State of Indiana (NFP)
43A03-1004-CR-245
Criminal. Affirms sentence following guilty plea to Class B felony robbery.

William Newhouse v. State of Indiana (NFP)
49A04-1001-CR-34
Criminal. Affirms sentence following guilty plea to two counts of Class B felony burglary, Class B felony attempted burglary, Class D felony stalking, three counts of Class D felony voyeurism, Class D felony attempted residential entry, Class A misdemeanor public indecency, and Class C misdemeanor public nudity.

Steve Uribe v. State of Indiana (NFP)
49A02-1003-CR-346
Criminal. Affirms 180-day executed portion of Uribe’s 365-day sentence for Class A misdemeanor criminal recklessness.

Kenneth McCreary v. State of Indiana (NFP)
49A02-1002-CR-179
Criminal. Affirms conviction of and sentence for Class B felony dealing in cocaine.

James F. Griffith v. State of Indiana (NFP)
35A02-1006-PC-705
Post conviction. Affirms denial of petition for post-conviction relief.

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. It appears the police and prosecutors are allowed to change the rules halfway through the game to suit themselves. I am surprised that the congress has not yet eliminated the right to a trial in cases involving any type of forensic evidence. That would suit their foolish law and order police state views. I say we eliminate the statute of limitations for crimes committed by members of congress and other government employees. Of course they would never do that. They are all corrupt cowards!!!

  2. Poor Judge Brown probably thought that by slavishly serving the godz of the age her violations of 18th century concepts like due process and the rule of law would be overlooked. Mayhaps she was merely a Judge ahead of her time?

  3. in a lawyer discipline case Judge Brown, now removed, was presiding over a hearing about a lawyer accused of the supposedly heinous ethical violation of saying the words "Illegal immigrant." (IN re Barker) http://www.in.gov/judiciary/files/order-discipline-2013-55S00-1008-DI-429.pdf .... I wonder if when we compare the egregious violations of due process by Judge Brown, to her chiding of another lawyer for politically incorrectness, if there are any conclusions to be drawn about what kind of person, what kind of judge, what kind of apparatchik, is busy implementing the agenda of political correctness and making off-limits legit advocacy about an adverse party in a suit whose illegal alien status is relevant? I am just asking the question, the reader can make own conclsuion. Oh wait-- did I use the wrong adjective-- let me rephrase that, um undocumented alien?

  4. of course the bigger questions of whether or not the people want to pay for ANY bussing is off limits, due to the Supreme Court protecting the people from DEMOCRACY. Several decades hence from desegregation and bussing plans and we STILL need to be taking all this taxpayer money to combat mostly-imagined "discrimination" in the most obviously failed social program of the postwar period.

  5. 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?

ADVERTISEMENT