ILNews

Opinions Feb. 17, 2011

February 17, 2011
Keywords
Back to TopE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

Indiana Supreme Court had posted no opinions at IL deadline.

Indiana Court of Appeals
Ahmad Foster v. State of Indiana (NFP)
49A02-1005-CR-579
Criminal. Affirms denial of motion to modify sentence.

Joseph L. Robinson, III v. State of Indiana (NFP)
79A02-1002-CR-142
Criminal. Affirms conviction of Class B felony dealing in cocaine and adjudication as a habitual substance offender.

Terry W. Dimmett v. State of Indiana (NFP)
82A01-1003-CR-120
Criminal. Affirms convictions of Class B felony dealing in methamphetamine and Class D felony possession of precursors with intent to manufacture methamphetamine.

David A. Hottman, Jr. v. State of Indiana (NFP)
21A04-1006-CR-439
Criminal. Reverses sentence following guilty plea to two counts of Class A felony dealing a controlled substance within 1,000 feet of a public park. Remands with instructions.

Nathan D. Simpson v. State of Indiana (NFP)
48A02-1005-CR-649
Criminal. Affirms sentence following guilty plea to Class C felony child molesting.

Antoine Hill v. State of Indiana (NFP)
45A03-1008-PC-410
Post conviction. Reverses denial of petition for post-conviction relief and remands with instructions.

E.W. v. State of Indiana (NFP)
28A04-1009-JV-612
Juvenile. Affirms adjudication as a delinquent child for committing Class A misdemeanor criminal mischief if committed by an adult.

Kevin T. Pettiford v. State of Indiana (NFP)
18A02-1004-CR-572
Criminal. Affirms revocation of home detention with Delaware County Community Corrections.

James Edens v. State of Indiana (NFP)
15A04-1007-CR-518
Criminal. Affirms sentence following guilty plea to Class A felony dealing in methamphetamine.

Indiana Tax Court had posted no opinions at IL deadline.
 

ADVERTISEMENT

Sponsored by
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. Don't we have bigger issues to concern ourselves with?

  2. Anyone who takes the time to study disciplinary and bar admission cases in Indiana ... much of which is, as a matter of course and by intent, off the record, would have a very difficult time drawing lines that did not take into account things which are not supposed to matter, such as affiliations, associations, associates and the like. Justice Hoosier style is a far departure than what issues in most other parts of North America. (More like Central America, in fact.) See, e.g., http://www.theindianalawyer.com/indiana-attorney-illegally-practicing-in-florida-suspended-for-18-months/PARAMS/article/42200 When while the Indiana court system end the cruel practice of killing prophets of due process and those advocating for blind justice?

  3. Wouldn't this call for an investigation of Government corruption? Chief Justice Loretta Rush, wrote that the case warranted the high court’s review because the method the Indiana Court of Appeals used to reach its decision was “a significant departure from the law.” Specifically, David wrote that the appellate panel ruled after reweighing of the evidence, which is NOT permissible at the appellate level. **But yet, they look the other way while an innocent child was taken by a loving mother who did nothing wrong"

  4. Different rules for different folks....

  5. I would strongly suggest anyone seeking mediation check the experience of the mediator. There are retired judges who decide to become mediators. Their training and experience is in making rulings which is not the point of mediation.

ADVERTISEMENT