Indiana Court of Appeals
Michael Gray v. State of Indiana
49A02-1205-CR-352
Criminal. Affirms conviction and sentence of Class D felony possession of cocaine, holding that the court erred in failing
to allow a defendant to play a tape of an officer’s deposition that contained inconsistent statements, but that the
error was harmless because other evidence at trial strongly pointed to Gray’s guilt.
Edwin Jones v. State of Indiana
49A02-1204-CR-292
Criminal. Affirms Class A misdemeanor conviction of operating a vehicle while intoxicated, holding that Jones’ Sixth
Amendment rights under the Confrontation Clause were not violated because the court allowed a state trooper to testify about
a certification of a breath-test machine rather than the signer of the certification.
AT&T v. Atlas Excavating, Inc. (NFP)
79A02-1207-PL-552
Civil plenary. Reverses trial court’s denial of AT&T’s motion for summary judgment and remands the matter
to the lower court with instructions to vacate its judgment in favor of Atlas, enter a summary judgment in favor of AT&T,
and conduct proceedings to determine damages.
Tammy Syers v. JKL Construction & Home Maintenance (NFP)
82A05-1205-CC-276
Civil collection. Affirms trial court’s judgment in favor of JKL Construction & Home Maintenance. Concludes JKL’s
mechanic’s lien was timely filed and that the lien is not void because of an overstatement in amount.
Thomas Oakley v. State of Indiana (NFP)
53A01-1204-CR-148
Criminal. Affirms five-year sentence following a guilty plea to carrying a handgun without a license, a Class C felony.
Manuel Lloyd Jamersen v. State of Indiana (NFP)
45A03-1206-CR-257
Criminal. Affirms sentence for Count I child molesting, a Class A felony; and Count II attempted child molesting, a Class
A felony. Finds the trial court did not abuse its discretion in sentencing Jamersen.
Ernestine Waldon, Christine Hampshire, and Vergie Small v. Donna Wilkins, MD, Joshua Williams, and
Rodney Barber, and Carl Barber, Jr. (NFP)
18A02-1203-PL-222
Civil plenary. Affirms in part, reverses in part and remands with instructions to reinstate Waldon’s replevin claim.
Concludes the trial court properly dismissed Waldon’s claims against appellees stemming from the execution of the trial
court’s demolition order under the doctrine of quasi-judicial immunity and immunity arising from the Indiana Tort Claims
Act. However, finds the trial court erred when it dismissed Waldon’s replevin claim contained in the amended complaint.
The Indiana Supreme Court and Tax Court issued no opinions prior to IL deadline. The 7th Circuit Court of
Appeals issued no Indiana decisions prior to IL deadline.
on Facebook & Twitter
Back to Top
vagueness cannot challenged, so let's write all laws vaguely and throw the constitution out the window.Even if the court is operating under a particular law, if they don't it they will change it to their liking. What a joke!!!
Two convictions becomes one conviction with exactly the same sentence, only it is not clear wheter or not that sentence will be 18 months, 120 months or 138 months. Actually if the guns were in a home, whether or not they were his, he is protected under the 2nd amendment. Jurors need to learn the law and the constitution before judging others. The cour5ts need to do this as well.
With all due respect, Rick, I think you probably would be making a mistake by going to law school. The job market for attorneys is so saturated, you may well find yourself unemployed and with a lot of debt. You mention law would be a good supplement to your skills. True. But employers unfortunately don't value that. You will find that a law degree may well pigeonhole you into an attorney slot and limit career options. If you have a good job now I would hold onto that. As an attorney, you may well end up making less with the aforementioned debt.
Jack, I was only responding to bill's comment of tying everybody in government together. I agree with you though, it takes one bad apple to ruin the bunch.. As in any profession. What's truly unfair is when somebody violates someone's trust and takes complete advantage of someone
John’s comment is unfair. The majority of attorneys can be trusted. Unfortunately, all it takes is one greedy, unscrupulous, immoral attorney to jade the public.