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
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