ILNews

Opinions Feb. 18, 2013

February 18, 2013
Keywords
Back to TopE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

Indiana Court of Appeals
Jim A. Edsall v. State of Indiana
57A03-1205-CR-240
Criminal. Affirms sentence following guilty plea to five counts of Class A felony delivery of methamphetamine and one count of Class A felony conspiracy to manufacture meth. There is no indication that the trial court considered alleged inaccurate and irrelevant testimony when sentencing him, and his sentence is appropriate based on his character and nature of his offenses. Reverses order of restitution as part of Edsall’s sentence because the trial court had not authority to order restitution in this case.

Alex Carrillo v. State of Indiana
49A05-1108-PC-437
Post conviction. Affirms denial of petition for post-conviction relief. Carrillo failed to show an objectively reasonable probability that but for his counsel’s failure to advise him of possible adverse immigration consequences, he would have decided to decline his guilty plea.

Alex Carrillo v. State of Indiana
49A02-1112-PC-1209
Post conviction. Affirms denial of PCR petition. The post-conviction court properly considered Carrillo’s attorney’s knowledge in assessing whether his attorney’s performance was deficient, and the court did not err in concluding that Carrillo failed to carry his burden to show that he received ineffective assistance of counsel.

Michael R. Sudberry v. State of Indiana

45A03-1206-CR-298
Criminal. Affirms conviction of Class C felony battery resulting in serious bodily injury. The trial court did not abuse its discretion by admitting evidence that Sudberry had previously threatened his brother and there was sufficient evidence to rebut his claim of self-defense.

Jerome Scott Mattingly v. Juan William Smith and Julie Ann Smith and Sharon O'Connell and Daniel E. Richards, Vernuse Mings and Meredith Mings, Glen H. Macphee and Carol S. Macphee, et al. (NFP)
55A05-1203-PL-142
Civil plenary. Affirms trial court conclusion that a plat of survey unambiguously created an express easement, thereby precluding consideration of extrinsic evidence and that the existence of that easement excused Mattingly’s actions.

Dennis L. Lloyd, Jr. v. State of Indiana (NFP)
30A04-1207-CR-431
Criminal. Affirms conviction of Class D felony possession of cocaine and Class A misdemeanor resisting law enforcement.

Robert D. Bowen v. State of Indiana (NFP)
08A02-1206-CR-504
Criminal. Affirms convictions of and sentence for Class B felony unlawful possession of a firearm by a serious violent felon, Class C felony dealing in a schedule IV controlled substance, Class D felony possession of a controlled substance and Class A misdemeanor possession of marijuana.

Nancie Hale, as Next Friend of John Doe v. Randolph County Kids, Inc. d/b/a Camp Yale, Randolph County Department of Community Corrections, Camp Kidz-Kan-Du, et al. (NFP)

89A01-1206-CT-246
Civil tort. Affirms summary judgment to Nautilus Insurance Co. and the reformed policy limits of $100,000 per occurrence and $300,000 aggregate instead of $1 million per occurrence and $2 million aggregate.  

The Indiana Supreme Court and Tax Court posted no opinions at IL deadline. The 7th Circuit Court of Appeals posted no Indiana decisions by 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. 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?

  2. Seventh Circuit Court Judge Diane Wood has stated in “The Rule of Law in Times of Stress” (2003), “that neither laws nor the procedures used to create or implement them should be secret; and . . . the laws must not be arbitrary.” According to the American Bar Association, Wood’s quote drives home this point: The rule of law also requires that people can expect predictable results from the legal system; this is what Judge Wood implies when she says that “the laws must not be arbitrary.” Predictable results mean that people who act in the same way can expect the law to treat them in the same way. If similar actions do not produce similar legal outcomes, people cannot use the law to guide their actions, and a “rule of law” does not exist.

  3. Linda, I sure hope you are not seeking a law license, for such eighteenth century sentiments could result in your denial in some jurisdictions minting attorneys for our tolerant and inclusive profession.

  4. Mazel Tov to the newlyweds. And to those bakers, photographers, printers, clerks, judges and others who will lose careers and social standing for not saluting the New World (Dis)Order, we can all direct our Two Minutes of Hate as Big Brother asks of us. Progress! Onward!

  5. My daughter was taken from my home at the end of June/2014. I said I would sign the safety plan but my husband would not. My husband said he would leave the house so my daughter could stay with me but the case worker said no her mind is made up she is taking my daughter. My daughter went to a friends and then the friend filed a restraining order which she was told by dcs if she did not then they would take my daughter away from her. The restraining order was not in effect until we were to go to court. Eventually it was dropped but for 2 months DCS refused to allow me to have any contact and was using the restraining order as the reason but it was not in effect. This was Dcs violating my rights. Please help me I don't have the money for an attorney. Can anyone take this case Pro Bono?

ADVERTISEMENT